WILSON v. ROTHENBURG et al

Filing 7

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff James Wilson, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 apparently alleging that he has been subjected to fals e arrest. Based on the foregoing screening, the complaint must be dismissed. The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action at present. Instead, the plaintiffs shall have through July 15, 2016, in whic h to file an amended complaint. If an amended complaint is filed as directed above, it will be screened. If no amended complaint is filed, this action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/10/2016.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAMES G. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARC ROTHENBURG, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-00147-JMS-MJD

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff James Wilson, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 apparently alleging that he has been subjected to false arrest.
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This
statute directs that the court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. To satisfy the noticepleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which is
sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The purpose of this requirement is Ato give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Wade v.
Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993)(noting that the main purpose of Rule 8 is rooted in

fair notice: a complaint Amust be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing
party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.@) (quotation omitted)). The
complaint “must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations
that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply,
Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Tamayo v. Blagojevich,
526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Based on the foregoing screening, the complaint must be dismissed. The entire body of the
complaint reads as follows:

These allegations fails to show that the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief beyond a speculative
level. The complaint does not state with any specificity what of the plaintiff’s rights have been
violated, how his rights have been violated, and who violated them. The attachments to the
complaint provide no assistance and do not seem to be related to the plaintiff’s claims at all. In

addition, allegations against Judges Carlisle and Rothenberg fail to state a claim because each is
entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to any actions taken in plaintiff’s pending cases.
The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action
at present. Instead, the plaintiffs shall have through July 15, 2016, in which to file an amended
complaint.
In filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to the following guidelines: (a)
the amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. . . . ,” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of
the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); (b) the amended
complaint must include a demand for the relief sought; (c) the amended complaint must identify
what legal injury they claim to have suffered and what persons are responsible for each such legal
injury; and (d) the amended complaint must include the case number referenced in the caption of
this Entry. The plaintiff is further notified that “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants
belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
If an amended complaint is filed as directed above, it will be screened. If no amended
complaint is filed, this action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 10, 2016

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
JAMES G. WILSON
139229
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only