Case 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 57
`
`
`TERRANCE SWANN,
`
`
`
`
`
`FRANK VANIHEL,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`VANSCHOYCK,
`JACK HERNDRIX,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Order Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
`
`Plaintiff Terrance Swann is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this civil action alleging Defendants violated his
`
`due process rights by not providing him periodic and meaningful reviews while he was in
`
`administrative segregation from October 2020 to October 2021. Because the plaintiff is a
`
`"prisoner," this Court has an obligation to screen the amended complaint before service on the
`
`defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or
`
`malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
`
`immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine 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 Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
`
`Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
`
`
`
`
`TERRANCE SWANN,
`
`
`
`
`
`FRANK VANIHEL,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`VANSCHOYCK,
`JACK HERNDRIX,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Order Screening Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
`
`Plaintiff Terrance Swann is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this civil action alleging Defendants violated his
`
`due process rights by not providing him periodic and meaningful reviews while he was in
`
`administrative segregation from October 2020 to October 2021. Because the plaintiff is a
`
`"prisoner," this Court has an obligation to screen the amended complaint before service on the
`
`defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
`
`I. Screening Standard
`
`When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or
`
`malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
`
`immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine 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 Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
`
`Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 58
`
`plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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 complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
`
`standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.
`
`2017).
`
`II. The Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`The amended complaint names six defendants: Frank Vanihel, Jerry Snyder, Randell
`
`Purcell, Charles Dugan, Case Worker VanSchoyck, and Jack Hendrix. The amended complaint
`
`makes the following allegations.
`
`
`
`In 2019, Plaintiff sued several Wabash Officials for failing to provide him meaningful
`
`reviews while in segregation. He was released from segregation during the pendency of that case
`
`and transferred to New Castle Correctional Facility. Plaintiff was transferred back to Wabash
`
`Valley and then placed back in administrative segregation on October 28, 2020. He remained there
`
`until October 2021.
`
`
`
`During the time he was in administrative segregation, Defendants did not provide him with
`
`meaningful or periodic reviews. Defendants would make false entries on these reviews and would
`
`often take Plaintiff's signature without explaining anything. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
`
`punitive damages.
`
`III. Discussion of Claims
`
`
`
`Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, Mr. Swann has
`
`plausibly stated a due process claim against all defendants. He alleges he was placed in
`
`administrative segregation from October 2020 to October 2021, and none of the Defendants
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 59
`
`provided him with periodic and meaningful reviews. This plausibly states a due process claim.
`
`Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524–26 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding the due process clause requires that
`
`jail officials provide periodic and meaningful reviews of inmates in administrative segregation to
`
`determine whether the inmate continues to pose a threat); see also Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d
`
`597, 610 (2d. Cir. 2017) ("It is not enough for officials to go through the motions of nominally
`
`conducting a review meeting when they have developed a pre-review conclusion that the inmate
`
`will be confined in [segregation] no matter what the evidence shows."). Mr. Swann's due process
`
`claim against all Defendants shall proceed.
`
`This summary of claims includes all of 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 December 20, 2022, in which
`
`to identify those claims. Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant
`
`to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`IV. Service of Process
`
`The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
`
`Frank Vanihel, Jerry Snyder, Randell Purcell, Charles Dugan, Case Worker VanSchoyck, and Jack
`
`Hendrix in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint filed
`
`on November 21, 2022, dkt [11], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
`
`Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
`
`The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees
`
`electronically.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: 12/2/2022
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00188-JPH-MJD Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 60
`
`Frank Vanihel
`Jerry Snyder
`Randell Purcell
`Charles Dugan
`Case Worker VanSchoyck
`Jack Hendrix
`(All at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility)
`
`Distribution:
`
`Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TERRANCE SWANN
`956680
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`CARLISLE, IN 47838
`Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
`
`
`
`
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
