Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 73
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`COREY CROUCH,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Corey Crouch is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF).
`
`Because Mr. Crouch 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.
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint concerns Mr. Crouch’s solitary confinement at WVCF from February 2016
`
`through December 2019. He brings claims for damages against ten current and former Indiana
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`COREY CROUCH,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Corey Crouch is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF).
`
`Because Mr. Crouch 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.
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint concerns Mr. Crouch’s solitary confinement at WVCF from February 2016
`
`through December 2019. He brings claims for damages against ten current and former Indiana
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 74
`
`Department of Correction (IDOC) employees who worked either at WVCF or at the IDOC Central
`
`Office during that time. The complaint also asserts claims against fifteen “John Doe” defendants
`
`employed as case workers, case managers, or unit managers at WVCF.
`
`
`
` The complaint alleges that Mr. Crouch was held in solitary confinement at WVCF from
`
`February 2016 through December 2019 without meaningful review of his placement. Mr. Crouch’s
`
`requests for full reviews of his placement were denied. When periodic reviews occurred, they did
`
`not involve any consideration of Mr. Crouch’s behavior, the amount of time he had been in solitary
`
`confinement, or any other information relevant to the need for continued solitary confinement.
`
`Rather, the defendants predetermined that Mr. Crouch would remain in solitary confinement and
`
`simply completed paperwork—often using computer generated forms—to keep him there.
`
`Mr. Crouch further alleges that each of the defendants was directly responsible for his
`
`prolonged solitary confinement because he or she either denied Mr. Crouch meaningful reviews,
`
`completed pro forma reviews without undertaking the necessary considerations, trained
`
`subordinates to perform pro forma reviews, or failed to properly train or supervise subordinates or
`
`otherwise ensure that meaningful reviews took place.
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch alleges that the conditions in solitary confinement were oppressive and
`
`inhumane. For example, he was confined to his cell 23 hours per day and had only solitary
`
`recreation. His cell was unclean and often covered in other inmates’ feces and urine. During the
`
`winter, he was forced to take cold showers and then remain locked in the cold shower area for
`
`prolonged periods. He suffers ongoing physical, mental, and emotional injuries as a result of his
`
`prolonged solitary confinement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 75
`
`III. Discussion of Claims
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch asserts Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against each of the
`
`defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims identified in Part V of the complaint1 shall
`
`proceed as submitted against Defendants Richard Brown, Kevin Gilmore, Jerry Snyder, Charles
`
`Dugan, Jerricha Meeks, Randall Purcell, Robert Carter, Jack Hendrix, Matt Leohr, and Andrea
`
`Mason.
`
`
`
`Claims against all John Doe defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted. “[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.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997)
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`IV. Conclusion and Further Proceedings
`
`
`
`The action shall proceed with the claims discussed in Part III above. The clerk is directed
`
`to update the docket to reflect that all John Doe defendants have been terminated.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel has issued process on the defendants. This Entry does not affect any
`
`defendant’s obligation to answer the complaint, his or her right to assert defenses by motion
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), or the time to do either.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`1 See dkt. 1 at 33–34.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Date: 5/6/2020
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 76
`
`
`Jeffrey R. Cardella
`LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC
`jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com
`
`Archer Riddick Randall Rose
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`archer.rose@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
