Davis v. Hershberger

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana
DecidedMay 2, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-00211
StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Hershberger (Davis v. Hershberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Hershberger, (N.D. Ind. 2025).

Opinion

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

KEENAN A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 1:25-CV-211-CCB-SJF

TROY HERSHBERGER, WACASEY, SICKAFOOSE,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Keenan A. Davis, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint seeking monetary damages because the emergency call button in his cell at the Allen County Jail was not answered either time he had an asthma attack. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Davis sues three defendants whom he alleges are responsible for the safety and medical care of inmates, but does not otherwise explain how they were involved in the “Claims and Facts” section of the complaint. There is no indication any of the three were monitoring his call button or were otherwise directly responsible for it not being Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009). “Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009).

This complaint does not state a claim against any of the named defendants. If Davis believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726,

738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form. For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Keenan A. Davis until June 5, 2025, to file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Keenan A. Davis if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.

SO ORDERED on May 2, 2025. /s/Cristal C. Brisco CRISTAL C. BRISCO, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Burks v. Raemisch
555 F.3d 592 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)
George v. Smith
507 F.3d 605 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Mhammad Abu-Shawish v. United States
898 F.3d 726 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Davis v. Hershberger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-hershberger-innd-2025.