DAVIS v. YARBER

Filing 8

ENTRY Screening Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Service of Process - The plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim for damages brought against Sgt. Barber shall proceed. This is the only viable claim the Court discerns in the complaint. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint but not identified by the Court, he shall have through November 27, 2017, in which to identify those claims. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Sgt. Yarber in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 1), 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 distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/27/2017.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
SAMUEL DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
YARBER individually and in her official
capacity as seargent at the Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00369-WTL-MJD

Entry Screening Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims,
and Directing Service of Process
I. Background
Plaintiff Samuel Davis 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).
II. Screening
The complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names Sgt. Yarber as the sole
defendant. The plaintiff alleges that on or about April 13, 2017, Sgt. Yarber wrote a false
conduct report against him in retaliation for the plaintiff filing an offender informal complaint
and other grievance/lawsuits against Sgt. Yarber. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff requests that the Court grant injunctive relief in the form of an order
restoring 45 days of earned credit time and the demotion of credit class which he lost in the
course of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Sgt. Yarber’s conduct report. This claim for
relief is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the
exclusive remedy for restoring lost earned credit time, in other words any challenge to the
duration of one’s confinement, is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994) (“Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state
prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier
release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983.”).
The plaintiff’s claim against Sgt. Yarber in her official capacity is dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because official capacity claims against state
employees “are treated as suits against the states themselves,” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d
591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011), and such claims for money damages are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011).

The plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim for damages brought against Sgt.
Yarber shall proceed. This is the only viable claim the Court discerns in the complaint. If the
plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint but not identified by the
Court, he shall have through November 27, 2017, in which to identify those claims.
III. Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant
Sgt. Yarber in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the
complaint (docket 1), 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: 10/27/17
Distribution:

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

SAMUEL DAVIS
962441
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Electronic Service to:
Sgt. Yarber at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility

NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.