TAYLOR v. WADLEIGH et al
ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/14/2018. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
GREGORY A TAYLOR,
PENELOPE WADLEIGH Nurse,
CORIZON HEALTH CARE,
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Gregory Taylor, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, brings this action
against Penelope Wadleigh and Corison Health Care pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I. Screening Standard
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).
Taylor alleges that in September of 2016, while he was housed at the New Castle
Correctional Facility, he complained to Nurse Practitioner Wadleigh that he was having
difficulty with paranoia and auditory hallucinations, but that she failed to ensure that he received
the proper medications to treat these conditions. As a result, he experienced auditory
hallucinations during recreation. Apparently because of his hallucinations, Taylor climbed the
recreation cage and was maced and injured. Taylor further alleges that Nurse Practitioner
Wadleigh’s failure to treat him was the result of a policy and practice and failure to train by
Corizon Health Care, her employer. Based on the screening set forth above, the following claims
Taylor’s allegation that Nurse Practitioner Wadleigh failed to treat his mental illness
shall proceed as a claim that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. This allegation shall also proceed as state law claims
of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Taylor’s claim that Corizon maintained an unconstitutional policy or practice and failed
to train its employees and that this practice and failure to train resulted in his injuries, shall
proceed as a claim that Corizon was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. His state law negligence and negligent infliction of
emotional distress claims shall also proceed against Corizon.
Taylor’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act
shall proceed against Corizon. See Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th
Cir. 2012) (individual employees are not amenable to suit under the Rehabilitation Act or the
This summary of remaining claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were
alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have through March 12, 2018,
in which to identify those claims.
III. Duty to Update Address
The pro se plaintiff shall report any change of address within ten (10) days of any change.
The Court must be able to locate the plaintiff to communicate with him. If the plaintiff fails to
keep the Court informed of his or her current address, the action may be subject to dismissal for
failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
IV. Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the
defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on,
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.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant - Court only
Corizon Health Care
103 Powell Ct. Ste 200
Brentwood, TN 37027
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Rd.
New Castle, IN 47362
Courtesy Copy to:
Bleeke Dillon Crandall
8470 Allison Pointe Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46250
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?