RICKARD v. CORIZON HEALTH CARE et al
ENTRY Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings: The dismissal of the amended complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action at present. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through February 27, 2017 in which to file a second amended complaint. The clerk is directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry (See Entry). Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/26/2017. (Attachments: # 1 copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form)(DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
) Case No. 2:16-cv-438-WTL-DKL
CORIZON HEALTH CARE, BRIAN SMITH,
PHEGLY, ADMINISTRATOR FARRAH,
RN’s for CORIZON HEALTH, PHARMACORR, )
DEE, MATT, HENRY, CAROLYN,
ROXANN LEWIS, BRYAN BULLER,
CARL KUENNLI, EDWARD ROSS,
BRUCE IPPEL, JESSICA HIRT, ANN PELL,
KATHY EDRINGTON, TINA BURGER,
KALA CRAWFORD, TYRA NICKERSON,
CASSANDRA, JUNE DOE, JOHN DOE,
Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
On November 30, 2016, the Court screened the plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for
failure to state a claim. The Court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
An amended complaint was filed on December 28, 2016. However, the amended complaint suffers
from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint.
The plaintiff names twenty-five defendants in the amended complaint, yet the plaintiff still
failed to identify a particular individual that was the cause of or directed any conduct causing a
In order to be held liable for a violation of § 1983 in an individual capacity, a defendant
must be “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Gentry v. Duckworth,
65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Sheik-Abdi v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 1240, 1246 (7th Cir.
1994)). Such personal responsibility exists if the conduct causing a constitutional deprivation
occurred at the individual’s direction or with his knowledge or consent. Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d
360, 369 (7th Cir. 1985) (other citations omitted)). Thus, “some causal connection or affirmative
link between the action complained about and the official sued is necessary for § 1983 recovery.”
Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983).
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief against any particular
defendant, the amended complaint is subject to dismissal.
The dismissal of the amended complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of
the action at present. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through February 27, 2017 in which to file
a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint must allege what each defendant did to deny the
plaintiff necessary medical care.
The “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” shall have the proper case number, 2:16-cv0438-WTL-DKL, on the front page. Failure to file a second amended complaint as directed may
result in the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with court
orders without further notice to the plaintiff.
In organizing his complaint, the plaintiff may benefit from utilizing the Court’s complaint
form. The clerk is directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along
with the plaintiff’s copy of this Entry.
If a second 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.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Scott Rickard, #884518
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
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?