`
`
`ANTHONY MARTIN,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`CHRISTHOPER HOLCOMB,
`VANIHEL,
`RUSSELL,
`SANDERS,
`MARK SMITH JR,
`MARTINEZ,
`AOHDA,
`THOMAS WELLINGTON,
`TAWNI TEMPLETON,
`WVCF PLAIT MANAGER,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`ASHLYNN LEDFORD GONTHIER,
`ALLY RITTENBERG- VARTSHYOCK,
`WOODS,
`GIBSON,
`ADAM JACKSON,
`ARNOLD,
`DORTOVAN,
`WIPPO,
`ALEXANDER,
`BYRD,
`AMY WRIGHT,
`KIM HUDSON,
`DANA LANDTRIP,
`HEATHER PAMERILLO,
`LAUREN CUPP,
`CHANTELL KNEPP,
`TAYLOR HILL,
`WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC,
`CENTURION HEALTH SERVICES OF
`INDIANA,
`INDIANA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS,
`MARK SMITH SR.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 39
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER SCREENING THE COMPLAINT, SEVERING CLAIMS,
`AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
`
`Anthony Martin, a prisoner at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, brings
`
`this lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights. Because Mr. Martin is a
`
`prisoner, the Court must screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`The complaint names the thirty-three prison officials, medical staff
`
`members, and other entities listed in the caption of this Order. Mr. Martin is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 40
`
`confined to a restricted housing unit at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. The
`
`complaint alleges that the plumbing system in this unit frequently malfunctions,
`
`causing feces, urine, and toilet water to flood the unit. The complaint outlines
`
`four sets of claims that are directly or indirectly related to this problem:
`
`A.
`
`Count 1 – Failure to Improve the Plumbing System
`
`The complaint alleges that the plumbing system at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility has been malfunctioning since Mr. Martin arrived at the
`
`facility in March 2020. The complaint alleges specific periods of when the
`
`plumbing system malfunctioned from August 20-24, 2021; August 28 –
`
`September 2, 2021; and September 14-16, 2021. The problem is generally known
`
`throughout the facility. Many correctional officers and grievance officers have
`
`expressed indifference to the problem, stated that the problem results from the
`
`fact that the facility has an old plumbing system, or stated that the issue is out
`
`of their control.
`
`The Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Plant Manager is responsible for
`
`the plumbing, water, and related matters within the facility. The Plaint Manager
`
`is aware of the issues with the plumbing system but has been unable to fix them
`
`or improve the system. The plant manager allegedly stated that there were
`
`"bigger issues that needed to be fixed in the facility." Dkt. 2 at ¶ 8. Warden Frank
`
`Vanihel is also aware of the problem but has not taken steps to rectify it.
`
`B. COUNT 2 – Failure to Clean Restrictive Housing Unit after Flooding
`
`The complaint alleges that when Mr. Martin's housing unit floods, he and
`
`other inmates are forced to live in unhabitable conditions. Throughout August
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 41
`
`and September 2021, defendants Lt. Holcomb, Major Russell, Warden Vanihel,
`
`Tawni Templeton, Thomas Wellington, the Plant Manager, Sgt. Sanders, Sgt.
`
`Smith, Sgt. Aohda, Sgt. Martinez, Ofc. Smith, Ofc. Jackson, Ofc. Arnold, Ofc.
`
`Donovan, and Ofc. Wippo were aware of the issue but did not take steps to
`
`improve the condition of the restrictive housing unit after the floods. That is to
`
`say, they did not attempt to remove raw sewage from the unit, ventilate the unit,
`
`remove the inmates from the unit, or otherwise ensure that Mr. Martin was
`
`housed in habitable prison conditions.
`
`C. COUNT 3 – Slip and Fall
`
`On September 16, 2021, Ofc. Woods and Ofc. Gibson escorted Mr. Martin
`
`to the showers. They failed to follow IDOC policy for escorting inmates and did
`
`not ensure that the floor was free of water or other hazards. As a result, Mr.
`
`Martin slipped and fell on the wet floor, which was slippery due to a flood on
`
`September 14. They let Mr. Martin lay on the wet floor for twenty minutes until
`
`members of the medical staff arrived to transport him to the infirmary on a
`
`gurney.
`
`D. COUNT 4 – Medical Care
`
`When Mr. Martin was taken to the infirmary, he was seen by Dr. Byrd,
`
`who ordered him to return to his cell. The complaint alleges that Mr. Martin was
`
`experiencing a medical emergency but was not transported to an outside hospital
`
`due to policies of the correctional facility's medical services provider.
`
`Over the next several weeks, Mr. Martin was largely unable to get out of
`
`bed. Nurse Cupp, Nurse Heather, Nurse Kneep, and Nurse Taylor came to his
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 42
`
`cell door each day but refused to provide him with his medication for high blood
`
`pressure, mental illness, and pain management. These refusals arose from
`
`policies that limited their ability to open the door of Mr. Martin's cell without the
`
`presence of a correctional officer.
`
`Kim Hobson and Amy Wright are responsible for scheduling prisoners for
`
`medical examinations and procedures, and they repeatedly delayed Mr. Martin's
`
`appointments and x-rays. Due to policies of the correctional facility's medical
`
`services provider, Mr. Martin had to receive three nursing visits before he could
`
`be seen by a doctor.
`
`Mr. Martin has suffered long-term complications from the fall on
`
`September 16, 2021, and from the denial/delays of medical care. Mr. Martin has
`
`been denied physical therapy and other treatment.
`
`III. Discussion
`
`A. Claims that Shall Proceed: COUNTS 1 and 2
`
`1. COUNT 1 – Failure to Improve Plumbing System
`
`The complaint alleges that Mr. Martin has been subjected to uninhabitable
`
`conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment because Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility has an old plumbing system that frequently floods raw
`
`sewage into his housing unit.
`
`However, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint must
`
`allege sufficient facts to create a reasonable inference that the defendants were
`
`personally involved in the constitutional violation. "Individual liability under §
`
`1983… requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation."
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 43
`
`Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
`
`omitted) (citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983) ("Section
`
`1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon
`
`fault. An individual cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action unless he caused or
`
`participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation.... A causal connection, or
`
`an affirmative link, between the misconduct complained of and the official sued
`
`is necessary.")).
`
`The question is whether the complaint alleges that the defendants were
`
`personally involved in failing to remedy the aging plumbing system. Liberally
`
`construed, the complaint creates a reasonable inference that the Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility Plant Manager and Warden Vanihel had the authority to
`
`remedy the plumbing system but chose not to expend the prison's resources for
`
`that purpose in deliberate indifference to the conditions of Mr. Martin's
`
`confinement. Accordingly, Mr. Martin's Eighth Amendment conditions of
`
`confinement claims and state law negligence claims shall proceed against these
`
`defendants in their individual and official capacities.
`
`The complaint does not create a reasonable inference that the other
`
`defendants (who are correctional officers, grievance officers, medical staff, and
`
`medical services providers) have the authority to improve the facility's plumbing
`
`system. Also, defendant Indiana Department of Correction is immune from suit
`
`under the Eleventh Amendment. See Nuñez v. Indiana Dep't of Child Services,
`
`817 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). To the extent that Mr. Martin seeks to bring
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 44
`
`claims against these other defendants for failing to remedy the facility's plumbing
`
`system, those claims are dismissed.
`
`2. COUNT 2 – Failure to Clean Restrictive Housing Unit after
`Flooding
`
`The complaint alleges that the problems with the faulty plumbing system
`
`are exacerbated by prison officials' refusal to remove raw sewage from Mr.
`
`Martin's housing unit after it floods. Accordingly, Mr. Martin's Eighth
`
`Amendment conditions of confinement claims and state law negligence claims
`
`shall proceed against Lt. Holcomb, Major Russell, Warden Vanihel, Tawni
`
`Templeton, Thomas Wellington, the Plant Manager, Sgt. Sanders, Sgt. Smith,
`
`Sgt. Aohda, Sgt. Martinez, Ofc. Smith, Ofc. Jackson, Ofc. Arnold, Ofc. Donovan,
`
`and Ofc. Wippo in their individual and official capacities.
`
`B. Claims that are Severed: COUNTS 3 and 4
`
`The Court exercises its discretion under Rule 21 to sever the remaining
`
`claims. See Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000) ("It
`
`is within the district court's broad discretion whether to sever a claim under Rule
`
`21 . . . As long as there is a discrete and separate claim, the district court may
`
`exercise its discretion and sever it."). The Court is severing Mr. Martin's
`
`remaining claims because the claims proceeding in this action under Counts 1
`
`and 2 are "capable of resolution despite the outcome of the other [severed]
`
`claims." Gaffney v. Riverboat Servs. of Indiana, 451 F.3d 424, 442 (7th Cir. 2006).
`
`Mr. Martin shall file a notice by June 9, 2023, telling the Court if he wants
`
`the Court to open a new cause of action for Count 3 and/or Count 4 which the
`
`Court has severed from this case. If Mr. Martin wants those claims to proceed,
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 45
`
`the Court will open two new separate civil actions for Count 3 and Count 4.
`
`Mr. Martin will be obligated to pay the filing fee for each new action the Court
`
`opens. If he does not meet this deadline, the remaining claims will be dismissed
`
`without prejudice, and he will need to file a complaint in a new civil action if he
`
`later decides to pursue any of those claims.
`
`IV. Service of Process
`
`The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
`
`to defendants Lt. Holcomb, Major Russell, Warden Vanihel, Tawni Templeton,
`
`Thomas Wellington, the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Plant Manager, Sgt.
`
`Sanders, Sgt. Smith, Sgt. Aohda, Sgt. Martinez, Ofc. Smith, Ofc. Jackson,
`
`Ofc. Arnold, Ofc. Donovan, and Ofc. Wippo in the manner specified by Rule 4(d).
`
`Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. [2], 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 terminate all other
`
`defendants on the docket.
`
`The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction
`
`employees electronically.
`
`The clerk is directed to rename the defendants on the docket to
`
`correspond with the names listed in the Distribution of this Order.
`
`Mr. Martin's motion requesting a status update, dkt. [7], is granted to the
`
`extent that he is notified that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
`
`was granted and no initial partial filing fee is due at this time.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00078-JPH-MKK Document 9 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 46
`
`Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to
`
`Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`ANTHONY MARTIN
`945288
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
`
`Electronic Service to the Following IDOC Defendants at Wabash Valley
`Correctional Facility
`Warden Frank Vanihel
`Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Plant Manager
`Lt. Christopher Holcomb
`Major Russell
`Tawni Templeton
`Thomas Wellington
`Sgt. Sanders
`Sgt. Mark Smith, Sr.
`Sgt. Aohda
`Sgt. Martinez
`Ofc. Mark Smith, Jr.
`Ofc. Adam Jackson
`Ofc. Arnold
`Ofc. Donovan
`Ofc. Wippo
`
`
`
`9
`
`Date: 5/19/2023
`
`