Case 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP Document 11 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 142
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`SEAN ELLISON,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Order Screening the Complaint,
`Identifying Viable Claims,
`and Dismissing Deficient Claims
`
`Plaintiff Sean Ellison, an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF), brings
`
`this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 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.
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
`
`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). 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); Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP Document 11 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 143
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`On March 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint naming the following defendants:
`
`Richard Brown, Kevin Gilmore, Jerry Snyder, Randall Purcell, Robert Carter, Jack Hendrix,
`
`Randy Vanvleet, and Jodeana Raney. The complaint also lists fifteen unnamed "John Doe"
`
`defendants. The defendants are all named in their individual capacities. The plaintiff is seeking
`
`compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
`
`
`
`The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was held in administrative segregation at WVCF
`
`from July 7, 2015, through July 6, 2018. During that time, he did not receive meaningful periodic
`
`reviews to determine whether his continued placement in administrative segregation was
`
`appropriate. The defendants were all responsible for the lack of meaningful periodic reviews, either
`
`by failing to train employees to conduct meaningful reviews, failing to implement policies to
`
`ensure meaningful reviews, training employees to conduct pretextual reviews, or conducting,
`
`approving, or contributing to pretextual reviews.
`
`Throughout his period of administrative segregation, the plaintiff was exposed to extreme
`
`cold in the winter and extreme heat in the summer. His period of administrative segregation caused
`
`him to suffer permanent physical, mental, and emotional injuries.
`
`III. Discussion
`
`This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a
`
`plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
`
`and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state
`
`law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). "[T]he first step in any [§ 1983] claim is to identify
`
`the specific constitutional right infringed." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP Document 11 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 144
`
`State prisoners have a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
`
`Clause in avoiding indefinite or prolonged assignments to administrative segregation units that
`
`impose "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of
`
`prison life." Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223 (2005); Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524
`
`(7th Cir. 2017). To comply with due process, prison officials must periodically conduct informal
`
`and non-adversary reviews to ensure that administrative segregation does not become a pretext for
`
`indefinite confinement. Isby, 856 F.3d at 525. "The [periodic] review need not be extensive, . . .
`
`[b]ut the review must be meaningful; it cannot be a sham or a pretext." Id. at 527.
`
`
`
`A prisoner’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
`
`are significantly diminished relative to individuals living in general society. See Hudson v. Palmer
`
`468 U.S. 517, 525-26 (1986); King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 898 (7th Cir. 2015). Nevertheless,
`
`prisoners have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from prolonged periods of administrative
`
`segregation that impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
`
`ordinary incidents of prison life. Leslie v. Doyle, 125 F.3d 1132, 1135 (7th Cir. 1997).
`
`"[P]rolonged 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).
`
`Based on the screening standard set forth above, the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due
`
`process claims, Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claims, and Eighth Amendment cruel
`
`and unusual punishment claims shall proceed against the named defendants.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP Document 11 Filed 06/10/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 145
`
`All claims against the "John Doe" defendants are dismissed. Bringing suit against unnamed
`
`defendants in federal court is generally disfavored by the Seventh Circuit. See Wudtke v. Davel,
`
`128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant [ ] in
`
`federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.") (internal citations omitted)). If the plaintiff learns the
`
`name of the unknown defendants during discovery, he may seek leave to add claims against them.
`
`These are the viable claims identified by the Court. If the plaintiff believes that additional
`
`claims were identified in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through
`
`June 30, 2020, to identify those claims.
`
`IV. Summary
`
`The plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, Fourth Amendment
`
`unreasonable seizure claims, and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims shall
`
`proceed against defendants Richard Brown, Kevin Gilmore, Jerry Snyder, Randall Purcell, Robert
`
`Carter, Jack Hendrix, Randy Vanvleet, and Jodeana Raney.
`
`All claims against the "John Doe" defendants are dismissed.
`
`The clerk is directed to terminate "John Doe 1-15" as defendants on the docket.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`Jeffrey R. Cardella
`LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC
`jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Date: 6/10/2020
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00153-JPH-DLP Document 11 Filed 06/10/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 146
`
`Kyle Christie
`CLINE FARRELL CHRISTIE LEE & BELL, PC
`kyle@CFCLB-law.com
`
`Marley Genele Hancock
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`marley.hancock@atg.in.gov
`
`Joshua Robert Lowry
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`joshua.lowry@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`