Davis v. Sickafoose
This text of Davis v. Sickafoose (Davis v. Sickafoose) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KEENAN A. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 1:25-CV-212-HAB-SLC
SICKAFOOSE, TROY HERSHBERGER, and WACASEY,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER Keenan A. Davis, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint seeking monetary damages because he was made sick by being served food at the Allen County Jail to which he is allergic. 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 alleges he notified medical and kitchen staff about his allergies and asked for alternative meals. He sues three defendants but makes no mention of them in the “Claims and Facts” section of the complaint. There is no indication any of the three are medical or kitchen employees. There is no general supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burks v. 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 1, 2025.
s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Davis v. Sickafoose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-sickafoose-innd-2025.