PARKER v. KREINHOP et al

Filing 4

ENTRY DISCUSSING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - Certain of Parker's claims are legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The claims against defendants Sgt. Amy Vance and Sheriff Mike Kreinhop are dism issed. The clerk is designated to issue and serve process on the defendant Jerry Kinnett. Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. The plaintiff has failed to sign the Complaint. The plaintiff shall ha ve through 2/28/2012, in which to file a statement with the court affirming and adopting the complaint as his as of the date it was filed. Failure to do so may lead to the dismissal of this action. The clerk is directed to include a copy of the complaint along with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry. MIKE KREINHOP and AMY VANCE terminated. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/18/2012.(JLM) Modified on 1/19/2012 (JLM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

GERID ALLEN PARKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF MIKE KREINHOP, et al.,
Defendants.

4:11-cv-0026-SEB-WGH

Entry Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims
and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Gerid Allen Parker, an inmate at the Dearborn County Law Enforcement
Center, alleges that on or about September 18, 2010, his constitutional rights were
violated. Specifically, Parker alleges that defendant Corp. Jerry Kinnett slammed the port
hole in the holding cell while Parker=s Ahand was stuck out in it.@ His claim is brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
I.
"A provision added to the Judicial Code by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
requires the district judge to screen prisoner complaints at the earliest opportunity and
dismiss the complaint, in whole or part, if . . . it 'fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.'" Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. '
1915A(b)(1)). The complaint in this action is subject to this screening process.
Certain of Parker=s claims are legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The
claims against defendants Sgt. Amy Vance and Sheriff Mike Kreinhop are
dismissed because there is no allegation that either of these defendants had any
personal or direct involvement in the injury to Parker=s hand or any other allegedly
unconstitutional conduct. The only claim against Sgt. Vance is that Ashe was aware of the
incident but failed to take proper procedures to assure [Parker=s] rights were being
afforded.@ The only allegation against the Sheriff is that Parker filed an administrative
complaint with the Sheriff and that the administrative complaint Awas unsuccessful.@
Liability is plausibly attributed to a higher official only if he or she is shown to "actually
have participated in the constitutional wrongdoing." Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024,
1037 (7th Cir. 1994). See also Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) ("To
recover damages under [42 U.S.C.] ' 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant
was personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right."). It is well-settled
that a supervisory relationship will not alone support liability for the alleged misdeeds of a
subordinate. West v. Waymire, 114 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 1997) ("the doctrine of

respondeat superior is not available to a plaintiff in a section 1983 suit"). The allegation
that defendant Sheriff Kreinhop or Sergeant Vance failed to act appropriately in response
to the plaintiff=s administrative grievance, moreover, is also insufficient to support a viable
claim for relief, because the plaintiff had no expectation in a particular outcome of his
grievances. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996)(Aa state's inmate
grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause@); Juriss v. McGowan, 957 F.2d 345, 349 n.1 (7th Cir. 1992) (without a predicate
constitutional violation one cannot make out a prima facie case under ' 1983).
II.
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve
process on the defendant Jerry Kinnett in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1).
Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry.
III.
The plaintiff has failed to sign the Complaint as required by Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is
promptly corrected after being called to the party=s attention. The plaintiff shall have
through February 28, 2012, in which to file a statement with the court affirming and
adopting the complaint as his as of the date it was filed. Failure to do so may lead to the
dismissal of this action without further notice.
The clerk is directed to include a copy of the complaint along with the plaintiff=s
copy of this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

01/18/2012

Distribution:

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Gerid Allen Parker
Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center
301 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Cor. Jerry Kinnett
Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center
301 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.