Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 15 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 65
`
`
`COREY JAMES SMITH,
`
`
`
`REAGLE Warden; at Pendleton ISR, et al.
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB
`
`ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT
`AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
`
`Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) inmate Corey James Smith commenced this 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 8, 2020 and paid an initial partial filing fee on February 5,
`
`2021. Dkt. 9. The Court now screens the complaint and makes the following rulings.
`
`I.
`
`Screening Standard
`
`Because the plaintiff is a prisoner, his complaint is subject to the screening requirements
`
`of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court shall dismiss a complaint or any claim
`
`within a complaint which "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
`
`may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
`
`Id. To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
`
`complaint must provide 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)); see also Tamayo v.
`
`Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008) (same). The Court construes pro se pleadings
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 15 Filed 03/19/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 66
`
`liberally and holds pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
`
`lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
`
`II.
`The Complaint
`
`The complaint names eight defendants: (1) Warden Reagle; (2) Caseworker A. Ross; (3)
`
`
`
`Director of Classification Paula Dixon; (4) Unit Team Manager Amburn; (5) J. Cook; (6) D.
`
`Arnold; (7) Grievance Specialist C. Conyer; and (8) Program Director Ashe.
`
`
`
`The following allegations are set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff was housed
`
`at Pendleton Correctional Facility (Pendleton) when he filed his complaint. He has since been
`
`transferred to Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (Wabash Valley). He alleges that all eight
`
`defendants work at Pendleton.
`
`The plaintiff was placed in restrictive housing on July 13, 2013, while he was incarcerated
`
`at Indiana State Prison. He did not receive a disciplinary report and was not told why he was placed
`
`in segregation. He was later classified as "department-wide administrative segregation." Dkt. 1 at
`
`2. He was then transferred to the Westville Control Unit for two years before being transferred to
`
`the Wabash Valley Secured Housing Unit. At some point he suffered a mental breakdown. He was
`
`eventually transferred to Pendleton and remained in segregation through the filing of his
`
`complaint. He was denied transfer to general population and access to the facility's step-down
`
`program even though he had a clear conduct record for more than a year. He has not received 30-
`
`day or 90-day reviews. Eight and a half years in segregation have caused him psychological
`
`damage.
`
`Defendants Dixon, Reagle, and Conyer have ignored or denied the plaintiff's classification
`
`appeals and grievances regarding his complaints. Defendant Ross has admitted to the plaintiff that
`
`staff violate policy by relying on bad conduct from 20-30 years ago to justify keeping him and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 15 Filed 03/19/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 67
`
`others in segregation. The complaint's allegations against counselors Arnold and Cook are not
`
`entirely clear, but the Court construes the complaint to allege that counselors Arnold and Cook
`
`attempted to release the plaintiff from segregation or place him in programs that would result in
`
`his release, but Warden Reagle thwarted their attempts. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
`
`compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`III.
`Discussion of Claims
`
`Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, certain claims
`
`
`
`are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted.
`
`
`
`First, all claims against Unit Team Manager Amburn and Program Director Ashe are
`
`dismissed because the complaint makes no factual allegations against them. "For constitutional
`
`violations under § 1983 or Bivens, a government official is only liable for his or her own
`
`misconduct." Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks
`
`omitted). Thus "[a] damages suit under § 1983 requires that a defendant be personally involved in
`
`the alleged constitutional deprivation." Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); see
`
`Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires
`
`'personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.'") (citation and quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`Second, the factual allegations against defendants Cook and Arnold, as construed by the
`
`Court, do not support a claim that these defendants violated any of the plaintiff's constitutional
`
`rights. The plaintiff alleges that these defendants attempted to transfer him out of segregation, but
`
`defendant Reagle ensured that the paperwork was changed so that the intentions of defendants
`
`Cook and Arnold were not implemented. Therefore, all claims against defendants Cook and Arnold
`
`are dismissed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 15 Filed 03/19/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 68
`
`Third, to the extent the complaint attempts to raise an Eighth Amendment conditions of
`
`confinement claim, it is dismissed for failure to state a claim. In cases involving the conditions of
`
`confinement in prison, two elements are required to establish a violation of the Eighth
`
`Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment: first, an objective showing that
`
`the conditions are sufficiently serious—i.e., that they deny the inmate "the minimal civilized
`
`measure of life's necessities," Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981), creating an excessive
`
`risk to the inmate’s health and safety—and second, a subjective showing of a defendant’s culpable
`
`state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The Seventh Circuit has held that
`
`"prolonged confinement in administrative segregation may constitute a violation of the Eighth
`
`Amendment . . . depending on the duration and nature of the segregation and whether there were
`
`feasible alternatives to that confinement." Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 666
`
`(7th Cir. 2012) (citing Walker v. Shansky, 28 F.3d 666, 673 (7th Cir. 1994)); see also Meriwether
`
`v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 416 (7th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff states the legal conclusion that he
`
`suffered atypical and significant hardship as a result of the length of his stay in segregation, but he
`
`alleges no facts describing the nature of his confinement in segregation that would support a claim
`
`that he was denied minimal life necessities. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he
`
`intends to pursue a conditions of confinement claim and has supporting factual allegations.
`
`This action shall proceed with Fourteenth Amendment claims against four defendants
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: 1) Warden Reagle; 2) A. Ross; 3) Paula Dixon; and 4) C. Conyer.
`
`This summary of remaining claims includes all 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 April 6, 2021, in
`
`which to identify those claims.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03151-JPH-MPB Document 15 Filed 03/19/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 69
`
`IV.
`Conclusion and Service of Process
`
`The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process electronically to
`
`defendants Reagle, Ross, Dixon, and Conyer in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
`
`Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. [1] applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request
`
`for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
`
`Because all claims against them have been dismissed, the clerk is directed to terminate
`
`Amburn, J. Cook, D. Arnold, and Ashe as defendants on the docket.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Distribution:
`
`COREY JAMES SMITH
`197539
`PENDLETON - CF
`PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
`Inmate Mail/Parcels
`4490 West Reformatory Road
`PENDLETON, IN 46064
`
`Warden Reagle
`A. Ross
`Paula Dixon
`C. Conyer
`
` (All at Pendleton Correctional Facility)
`
`5
`
`Date: 3/19/2021
`
`