TYSON v. BEDWELL

Filing 14

Order Dismissing Complaint and Opportunity to Show Cause - The Court received the plaintiff's partial payment on November 10, 2020, and will separately issue a collection order to facilitate payment of the remainder of the fee. Dkt. 13 . The plaintiff shall have through December 21, 2020, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Order should not issue. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 11/20/2020.(KAA)

Case 2:20-cv-00483-JPH-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MARK TYSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DAN BEDWELL,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00483-JPH-MJD

Order Dismissing Complaint and Opportunity to Show Cause
I. Filing Fee
The Court acknowledges the plaintiff's letter received on November 16, 2020, regarding
the payment of the filing fee. Dkt. 12. The Court received the plaintiff's partial payment on
November 10, 2020, and will separately issue a collection order to facilitate payment of the
remainder of the fee. Dkt. 13.
II. Screening Standard
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an
obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) 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,

1

Case 2:20-cv-00483-JPH-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 53

[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. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
III. Dismissal of the Complaint
The complaint names one defendant, Dan Bedwell, and raises the following factual
allegations. On July 22, 2020, the plaintiff found a rock in his food at breakfast. Defendant Bedwell
is the supervisor of Aramark, the company that contracts with the Indiana Department of
Correction to provide inmate meals. Defendant Bedwell is supposed to watch inmates making the
food to "make sure things like this don't happen [be]cause the plaintiff Tyson could [have] broke
or lost a tooth." Dkt. 1 at 2-3. The plaintiff does not allege that he was injured, but the incident
caused him emotional distress. He seeks punitive damages.
The plaintiff's claims against Dan Bedwell are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Bedwell is responsible for the rock
in the plaintiff's breakfast because defendant Bedwell supervises the inmates that prepare inmate
meals. But § 1983 "does not authorize 'supervisory liability.'" Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591,
592 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, it "creates liability only for a defendant's personal acts or decisions."
Id. The plaintiff does not allege that the defendant personally prepared the plaintiff's breakfast tray.
For this reason, the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed.
IV. Opportunity to Show Cause
The plaintiff shall have through December 21, 2020, in which to show cause why Judgment
consistent with this Order should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014,
2

Case 2:20-cv-00483-JPH-MJD Document 14 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 54

1022 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show
cause, an IFP applicant's case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely
notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.").
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/20/2020

Distribution:
MARK TYSON
127906
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838

3