HAMLET v. COMMISSIONER et al

Filing 14

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville Correctional Industrial Facility ("Putnamville"). 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 amended complaint [dkt. 12 ] before service on the defendants. For the reasons explained below, certain claims will proceed while othe r claims must be dismissed. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Drew Adams, John Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and Michael Easton in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the a mended complaint filed on March 1, 2017 (docket 12 ), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. (See Entry.) Copies mailed pursuant to distribution list via US Mail.Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/19/2017.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

KEVIN D. HAMLET,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER Indiana Department of
Correction, INDIANA PAROLE BOARD,
K. DAVIDSON Indiana Parole Officer,
M. EASTON Indiana Parole Officer,
BROWN IMPD Officer, MARION CO.
CLERK OF THE COURT RM. 24,
SUPERINTENDENT New Castle Correctional
Facility, NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY CLASSIFICATION DEPT.,
UNKNOWN New Castle Correctional Facility
staff, RANDY SHORT Director, Classification
IDOC, JOHN LAYTON Marion County
Sheriff’s Department, C. BURKETT Indiana
Ombudsman,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00067-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Putnamville Correctional Industrial
Facility (“Putnamville”). 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 amended complaint [dkt.
12] before service on the defendants. For the reasons explained below, certain claims will proceed
while other claims must be dismissed.

I.
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).
II.
Plaintiff Kevin D. Hamlet alleges that he was denied due process and retaliated against
which led to his wrongful incarceration. His claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
seeks a declaratory injunction and money damages.
Mr. Hamlet alleges that in March 2016, he was told to report to Parole District # 3 to see
Parole Agent Kayla Davidson. She allegedly threatened Mr. Hamlet into signing an “illegal Parole
Agreement” for a sentence he had already completed. Dkt. 12 at p. 4. While on parole, Mr. Hamlet
provided Ms. Davidson with documentation that he was proscribed opiates. On April 8, 2016, Mr.
Hamlet was arrested by Parole Supervisor John Hosler for a positive or “dirty” drug screen. Mr.
Hamlet alleges that the specimen sample was thrown away and not tested by a laboratory and that

2

he was only arrested based on Ms. Davidson’s and or Mr. Hosler’s orders/assessment. Mr. Hamlet
was then taken to the Marion County Jail and booked.
On April 11, 2016, Mr. Hamlet was visited by Parole Officer Michael Easton. Mr. Easton
stated that if Mr. Hamlet waives his parole revocation hearing he would be given a 10 day sanction
and released. Mr. Hamlet signed the waiver, but was not released. Instead he was transferred to
the Reception Diagnostic Center in Plainfield, Indiana. Mr. Hamlet then contacted a long list of
individuals notifying them that he was wrongfully incarcerated. He was never given a parole
revocation proceeding. Instead Mr. Hamlet was held in custody and discharged to home detention
on or about May 31, 2016.
Mr. Hamlet asserts that the parole agents took these actions to retaliate against Mr. Hamlet
for filing a lawsuit alleging that he had been subjected to excessive force.
III.
Applying the standard set forth above to the allegations of the amended complaint, certain
claims shall proceed while other claims must be dismissed.
The claim that defendant parole officers, Drew Adams, John Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and
Michael Easton, wrongfully incarcerated Mr. Hamlet in violation of his due process rights shall
proceed as submitted.
The claim that defendant parole officers, Drew Adams, John Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and
Michael Easton, retaliated against Mr. Hamlet in violation of his First Amendment rights shall also
proceed as submitted.
All other claims and defendants are dismissed. “A damages suit under § 1983 requires that
a defendant be personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Matz v. Klotka, 769

3

F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“Section 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious responsibility. Liability depends on each
defendant’s knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge or actions of persons they supervise. . .
. Monell’s rule [is that] that public employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for
anyone else’s.”) (citing Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
As presented, the parole officers created a shame violation, circumvented the parole board, and
coerced Mr. Hamlet is waiving his rights all in retaliation for filing a civil rights lawsuit. There are
no allegations which suggest that the other named defendants were liable for the misconduct
alleged.
IV. Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
Drew Adams, John Sosler, Kayla Davidson, and Michael Easton in the manner specified by Rule
4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed on March 1, 2017 (docket 12), 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: 4/19/17

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

4

Distribution:
KEVIN D. HAMLET
892772
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Drew Adams, Parole Supervisor PD #3
Indiana Parole Dist. #3
6400 East 30th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46219
John Sosler, Indiana Parole Supervisor
Indiana Parole Dist. #3
6400 East 30th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Kayla Davidson, Parole Officer
Indiana Parole Dist. #3
6400 East 30th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Michael Easton
Indiana Parole Dist. #3
6400 East 30th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46219

5