ROSALES v. CORIZON, INC. et al
Filing
11
ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Rosales's claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs shall proceed against Dr. Neil Martin and Corizon. All other defendants shall be terminated. The clerk is de signated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Dr. Neil Martin and Corizon in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/25/2016. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (GSO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
OSCAR ROSALES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORIZON, INC.,
MCHAEL MITCHEFF M.D.,
MANDIP KAUR BARTELS M.D.,
NEIL JOHN MARTIN M.D.,
MARY RANKIN H.S.A.,
KIM HOBSON H.S.A.,
M. RODRIGUEZ R.N.,
R. ROBINSON R.N.,
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:16-cv-00080-WTL-DKL
Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Oscar Rosales, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants have failed to properly treat his
knee, back, and neck pain and his bladder issues. He alleges violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act. Rosales’s claims shall proceed as directed in this Entry.
I. Screening of the Complaint
Because Rosales is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(h), the complaint is subject
to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Pursuant to this statute, “[a] complaint is
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff
is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss,
the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). Pro se
complaints such as that filed by Rosales, are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517
F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Based on the foregoing screening, Rosales’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs shall proceed against defendants Dr. Neil Martin
and Corizon.
All other claims must be dismissed. First, while Rosales names generally claims against
“medical defendants,” he makes no specific factual allegation of wrongdoing on the part of any
defendant other than Dr. Martin and Corizon. See Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir.
1974) (“Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the
complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the complaint
is properly dismissed.”). George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 ((7th Cir. Cir. 2007)(“Only persons
who cause or participate in the violations are responsible”; an official “who rejects an
administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not [cause or contribute to the
violation]”).
In addition, Rosales has failed to state an equal protection claim for relief under the
Fourteenth Amendment. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits
state action that discriminates on the basis of membership in a protected class or irrationally targets
an individual for discriminatory treatment as a so-called ‘class of one.’” Reget v. City of La Crosse,
595 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2010). Rosales has not alleged that he was treated differently based on
his membership in a particular class or that he was irrationally targeted for disparate treatment.
Next, Rosales has failed to allege the elements of a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Rehabilitation Act. Both claims require the following showing:
(1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff was either excluded from
participating in, or denied the benefits of, a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or were
otherwise discriminated against; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination
was by reason of disability. Flynn v. Doyle, 672 F. Supp. 2d 858, 878 (E.D. Wis. 2009). While
Rosales alleges that he has received inadequate medical treatment, he has not alleged that he was
discriminated against on the basis of a disability.
Finally, claims against all unknown defendants are dismissed . . . for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because “it is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant [ ]
in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P.
15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997)
(internal citations omitted). Bringing suit against unnamed, or “John Doe,” defendants in federal
court is generally disfavored by the Seventh Circuit. If through discovery, Rosales is able to learn
the name of the unknown defendants, he may seek leave to add a claim against them.
II. Further Proceedings
Rosales’s claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs shall proceed
against Dr. Neil Martin and Corizon. All other defendants shall be terminated. The clerk is
designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Dr. Neil Martin and
Corizon in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable
forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service
of Summons), and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Date: 4/25/16
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
OSCAR ROSALES
194882
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Dr. Martin
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
PO Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?