THOMPSON v. HAYNES et al

Filing 6

ENTRY - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is granted. No initial partial filing fee is feasible at this time. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants (1) Neil Martin, (2) Naveen Rajoli, and (3) Samuel Byrd in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 2), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is directed to remove all defendants from the docket other than the three listed in the preceding paragraph (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/2/2017. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ANTHONY E. THOMPSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NEIL J. MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00038-WTL-DKL

Entry Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Screening Complaint,
and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. No initial partial
filing fee is feasible at this time. Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, the plaintiff still owes the
entire filing fee. “All [28 U.S.C.] § 1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment of the docket fees;
a litigant remains liable for them, and for other costs, although poverty may make collection
impossible.” Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
II.
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash Valley”). Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this
Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the
defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court
applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive
dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Gregory
Haynes, Timothy Bartholomew, Jeffery Smith, John Nwannunu, Neil Martin, Naveen Rajoli, and
Samuel Byrd, all of whom are physicians at Wabash Valley. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in that they were deliberately indifferent to the
pain and treatment of his diabetes and right foot pain from late 2013 through the present.
First, the plaintiff’s claims against Gregory Haynes, John Nwannunu, and to the extent he
attempts to raise claims against Nurse Hobson and Nurse Robinson, are all dismissed. Liability
under § 1983 requires each defendant to be personally involved in the alleged constitutional
violation, and the plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any allegations against these defendants.
See Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824,
833 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires ‘personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional deprivation.’”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Second, the plaintiff’s claims against Timothy Bartholomew and Jeffery Smith are barred
by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim in Indiana is two years.
See Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 590 (7th Cir. 2013). The plaintiff signed his Complaint on
January 18, 2017. Therefore, all claims accruing prior to January 18, 2015, are barred by the

statute of limitations. The only allegations regarding Timothy Bartholomew and Jeffery Smith
stem from late 2013 and 2014. Accordingly, all claims against these two defendants are dismissed.
As to the remaining defendants, however, the plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state
an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the treatment and pain management of his diabetes and
medical issues with his right foot.
III.
Given the foregoing, the following claims shall proceed:


Eighth Amendment medical claims against Neil Martin, Naveen Rajoli, and Samuel
Byrd regarding their treatment and pain management of the plaintiff’s diabetes and
right foot issues.

The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants (1)
Neil Martin, (2) Naveen Rajoli, and (3) Samuel Byrd in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 2), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and
Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
The clerk is directed to remove all defendants from the docket other than the three listed
in the preceding paragraph.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/2/17

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
ANTHONY E. THOMPSON
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Dr. Neil Martin – Corizon Employee
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Dr. Naveen Rajoli – Corizon Employee
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Dr. Samuel Byrd – Corizon Employee
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838