`ROBERT E CARTER, JR,
`MR. LEOHR,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`DICK BROWN,
`RANDAL PURCELL,
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`GILLMORE,
`FRANK VANIHEL,
`VANSHORYK,
`DR. JOE,
`UNKNOWN INTERNAL INVESTIGATORS,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG Document 12 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`MICHAEL K GREGORY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
`
`Plaintiff Michael Gregory is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this civil action alleging his placement in
`
`administrative segregation has violated his constitutional rights. Because the plaintiff is a
`
`"prisoner," this Court has an obligation to screen the 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG Document 12 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 20
`
`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
`
`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 Complaint
`
`
`
`Mr. Gregory has sued twelve defendants: Robert E Carter Jr., M. Leohr, Jerry Snyder, Jack
`
`Hendrix, Richard Brown, Randall Purcell, Charles Dugan, Gillmore, Frank Vanihel, Vanshoryk,
`
`CO Joe, and Unknown Internal Investigators. The complaint makes the following allegations.
`
`
`
`Mr. Gregory was transferred to Wabash Valley on May 16, 2017, and he was placed in
`
`administrative segregation. Mr. Gregory has been in segregation ever since, and he has not
`
`received meaningful or periodic reviews. Mr. Gregory asserts each defendant is involved in the
`
`review process and refuses to review his placement.
`
`
`
`Mr. Gregory also contends he has been subjected to unlawful conditions of confinement.
`
`He alleges he is being housed like a "wild animal." He is restricted to his cell twenty-four hours a
`
`day; his cell is eighty-four square feet; a security light is on twenty-four hours a day; he has access
`
`to a shower twice a week, and he is subjected to intimidation and threats by correctional officers.
`
`Mr. Gregory seeks money damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG Document 12 Filed 02/03/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 21
`
`III. Discussion of Claims
`
`
`
`Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint certain claims
`
`are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted.
`
`
`
`First, Mr. Gregory's claims against "Unknown Internal Investigators" are dismissed
`
`because "it 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) (cleaned up). If Mr.
`
`Gregory learns the name of the unknown defendants through discovery, he may seek leave to add
`
`them as defendants. For now, these claims are dismissed.
`
`
`
`Second, Mr. Gregory has plausibly stated a due process claim against all defendants for
`
`their failure to provide him meaningful and periodic reviews while he has been held in segregation.
`
`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. Gregory's due process
`
`claim against all defendants shall proceed.
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. Gregory has plausibly stated a conditions of confinement claim against all
`
`defendants. Isby, 856 F.3d at 521 (noting the Eighth amendment prohibits conditions of
`
`confinement that deny the inmate the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities). Mr.
`
`Gregory's Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants shall proceed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG Document 12 Filed 02/03/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 22
`
`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 March 1, 2023, 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.
`
`The clerk is directed to terminate "Unknown Internal Investigators" as defendants on the
`
`docket and change "Dr. Joe" to "Joe."
`
`IV. Service of Process
`
`The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
`
`Robert E Carter Jr., M. Leohr, Jerry Snyder, Jack Hendrix, Richard Brown, Randall Purcell,
`
`Charles Dugan, Gillmore, Frank Vanihel, Vanshoryk, and CO Joe in the manner specified by Rule
`
`4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on October 3, 2022 , dkt [1], 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Date: 2/3/2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00439-JPH-MG Document 12 Filed 02/03/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 23
`
`Distribution:
`
`Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
`
`Robert E Carter Jr.
`M. Leohr
`Jerry Snyder
`Jack Hendrix
`Richard Brown
`Randall Purcell
`Charles Dugan
`Gillmore
`Frank Vanihel
`Vanshoryk
`CO Joe
`
`(All at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility)
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL K GREGORY
`852611
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
`P.O. Box 1111
`CARLISLE, IN 47838
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
