DECKER v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Filing 12

Entry Denying Motion to Porceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing the Complaint, and Directing the Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint - The plaintiff has paid the $400.00 filing in this action. As such, his motion to proceed in forma p auperis, Dkt. No. 11 , is denied as moot. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons set forth above and the plaintiff shall have through July 25, 2018, to file an amended complaint (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/22/2018. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

ROBERT K. DECKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:18-cv-00185-WTL-MJD

Entry Denying Motion to Porceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing the Complaint, and
Directing the Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint
I. In Forma Pauperis
The plaintiff has paid the $400.00 filing in this action. As such, his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 11, is denied as moot. The complaint is now ready for screening.
II. Screening Standard
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at United States Penitentiary-Terre Haute
(USP-TH). 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).
III. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has hepatitis C and that the Bureau of Prisons
medical staff does not properly or adequately treat this condition in any infected inmate, in
violation of the Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that he has been incarcerated since
2016 and has not received any medical treatment for his hepatitis C. He alleges he has been told it
will be years before he is provided any treatment.
The plaintiff names the “Federal Bureau of Prisons, Medical Care, Chronic Care Clinic”
as the defendant. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of treatment for himself and all other
inmates with hepatitis C. He also seeks class certification. His claim is brought pursuant to the
theory set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Dkt. No. 1, p. 4.
IV. Discussion of Claims
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff’s
claim must be dismissed because he fails to name an individual responsible for the alleged
misconduct. In Bivens claims, the complaint must allege direct and personal responsibility for the
unlawful conduct and respondeat superior cannot be the basis of a Bivens claim. There must be
individual participation and involvement by an individual. Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024,
1047 (7th Cir. 1994).
As such, the Bivens claim that the defendant “Federal Bureau of Prisons, Medical Care,
Chronic Care Clinic” failed to treat his serious medical condition is dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Next, the plaintiff seeks class certification to proceed on behalf of all inmates at USP-TH
with hepatitis C.
Under Rule 23(a)(4), a class representative must fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without
counsel, but not the claims of others. This is so because the competence of a layman
is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others
Fymbo v. State Farm, 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se he cannot adequately represent a class action.
Therefore, his request for class certification is denied.
V. Dismissal of Complaint
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief against any particular
defendant, the complaint is dismissed.
VI. Further Proceedings
The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action
at present. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through July 25, 2018, in which to file an amended
complaint.
In filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to the following guidelines:
(a) the amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief. . . . ,” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice”
of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); (b) the amended
complaint must include a demand for the relief sought; and (c) the amended complaint must
identify what legal injury he claims to have suffered and what persons are responsible for each
such legal injury. The plaintiff must state his claims “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far

as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The plaintiff is further
notified that “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.” George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 1:18-cv-185-WTL-MJD and
the words “Amended Complaint” on the first page. If an 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.
VII. Summary
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 11, is denied as moot.
The complaint is dismissed for the reasons set forth above and the plaintiff shall have
through July 25, 2018, to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/22/18
Distribution:
ROBERT K. DECKER
51719-074
TERRE HAUTE - USP
TERRE HAUTE U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808

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