Case 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`SAVANE WILLIAMS,
`
`
`
`
`
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`DICK BROWN,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`PERCELL,
`ROBERT E. CARTER,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
`
`Plaintiff Savane Williams is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF).
`
`He has sued employees of the Indiana Department of Correction alleging that they have violated
`
`his due process rights. Because Mr. Williams 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.
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`SAVANE WILLIAMS,
`
`
`
`
`
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`DICK BROWN,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`PERCELL,
`ROBERT E. CARTER,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
`
`Plaintiff Savane Williams is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF).
`
`He has sued employees of the Indiana Department of Correction alleging that they have violated
`
`his due process rights. Because Mr. Williams 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.
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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.
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 30
`
`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).
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint names the following defendants: 1) Charles Dugan, Case Worker; 2) Dick
`
`Brown, Warden; 3) Jerry Snyder, Unit Team Manager; 4) Randall Parcel, Case Worker Manager;
`
`5) Robert E. Carter, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC); and 6) Jack
`
`Hendrix, Assistant Superintendent. All the defendants are sued in their individual capacities.
`
`Defendants Hendrix and Carter are also sued in their official capacities. Mr. Williams seeks
`
`compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`Mr. Williams alleges that he has been in Administrative Segregation since April 11,
`
`2011. As a result of this placement he is confined in a small cell for 23 hours a day and allowed
`
`out for one hour of recreation by himself. He eats his meals alone from a food tray passed
`
`through a narrow opening in his cell door. A security light remains on 24 hours a day. He states
`
`that he uses a wheelchair. He states that he has not received a meaningful 30-day review of from
`
`April 11, 2011, through January 2019. These allegations implicate the Eighth Amendment’s
`
`prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
`
`During Mr. Williams’ time in segregation, he has received only “perfunctory” 30-day
`
`reviews of his Administrative Segregation status. He alleges he cannot appeal 30-day reviews
`
`because there are no instructions as to how to obtain review of those decisions. He also alleges
`
`that he has not received any 90-day reviews.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 31
`
`Mr. Williams makes specific allegations against each defendant. He alleges that
`
`Mr. Parcel, Mr. Dugan, and Mr. Snyder are responsible for conducting the 30 to 90-day reviews,
`
`but have failed to provide meaningful reviews. Commissioner Carter creates policies and rules
`
`for the IDOC, but has failed to provide an avenue to appeal the 30-day reviews. Warden Brown
`
`has failed to properly train Mr. Parcel, Mr. Dugan, and Mr. Snyder how to conduct the 30- and
`
`90-day reviews. Mr. Hendrix has failed to properly supervise the IDOC classification system or
`
`train staff on how to conduct meaningful periodic reviews. Mr. Williams alleges that all the
`
`defendants have violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
`
`III. Discussion of Claims
`
`
`
`This action shall proceed with Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all six
`
`defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These claims shall proceed against the defendants only
`
`in their individual capacities.
`
`Official-capacity claims against Defendants Hendrix and Carter are dismissed for failure
`
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Official-capacity claims against state
`
`employees “are treated as suits against the states themselves,” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d
`
`591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011), and such claims for money damages are barred by the Eleventh
`
`Amendment. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011).
`
`If Mr. Williams believes the complaint asserted additional claims, he shall have through
`
`February 24, 2019, to notify the Court of those claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00579-JPH-MJD Document 11 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 32
`
`IV. Issuance of Process
`
`The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process
`
`to Defendants (1) Charles Dugan, (2) Dick Brown, (3) Jerry Snyder, (4) Randall Parcel, (5)
`
`Robert E. Carter, and (6) Jack Hendrix, in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 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 Entry.
`
`All defendants shall be served electronically.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`SAVANE WILLIAMS
`885175
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
`P.O. Box 1111
`CARLISLE, IN 47838
`
`Electronic service to:
`
`
`At Wabash Valley Correctional Facility:
`Charles Dugan
`Dick Brown
`Jerry Snyder
`Randall Parcel
`
`At the Indiana Department of Correction:
`Robert E. Carter
`Jack Hendrix
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 1/29/2020
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
