`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`CECIL JENKINS,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:21-cv-00075-JPH-DLP
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
`
`Cecil Jenkins is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("WVCF"). Because
`
`Mr. Jenkins 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). The Court construes pro se pleadings 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).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00075-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 73
`
`II. The Complaint
`
`
`
`The complaint alleges that Mr. Jenkins was held in solitary confinement at WVCF from
`
`November 2007 until March 2019. The defendants are current or former Indiana Department of
`
`Correction ("IDOC") employees who worked either at WVCF or at the IDOC central office while
`
`Mr. Jenkins was held in solitary confinement. The complaint is based on the following allegations.
`
`
`
`Mr. Jenkins was held in solitary confinement at WVCF for more than 11 years. His
`
`placement in solitary confinement was not meaningfully reviewed during that time. He alleges that
`
`his requests for full reviews of his placement were denied. When periodic reviews occurred, they
`
`did not involve any consideration of Mr. Jenkins' 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. Jenkins would remain in solitary
`
`confinement and simply completed paperwork—often using computer generated forms—to keep
`
`him there.
`
`Each defendant was directly responsible for Mr. Jenkins' prolonged solitary confinement
`
`because he or she either denied Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins alleges that his 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 infested with pests; he was forced to take cold showers and
`
`then remain locked in the cold shower area for prolonged periods; and he was forced to sleep on a
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00075-JPH-DLP Document 10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 74
`
`concrete slab. He suffers ongoing physical, mental, and emotional injuries as a result of his
`
`prolonged solitary confinement.
`
`III. Discussion of Claims and Further Proceedings
`
`
`
`Mr. Jenkins alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
`
`rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment, depriving him of due process, and failing
`
`to protect him from imminent risks of serious harm. The action shall proceed with Eighth and
`
`Fourteenth Amendment claims against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`
`
`
`Mr. Jenkins has issued process to the defendants. The defendants shall continue to have
`
`through March 29, 2021, to answer the complaint. This Entry does not affect any defendant's
`
`obligation to answer the complaints or right to assert defenses by motion pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 12(b).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`Kyle Christie
`CHRISTIE FARRELL LEE & BELL, P.C.
`kyle@cflblaw.com
`
`Archer Riddick Randall Rose
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`archer.rose@atg.in.gov
`
`Benjamin Charles Wade
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`ben.wade@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Date: 3/5/2021
`
`
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
