HAINES v. PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: March 1, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00119
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

RICKEY D. HAINES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00119-JPH-DLP ) PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ) ) Defendant. )

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Filing of Amended Complaint Plaintiff Rickey D. Haines is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). I. The Complaint Mr. Haines names the Putnamville Correctional Facility and its staff as defendants in this action. He alleges this case "involves Constitutional matters, State matters and the committing of the breaking of many laws, rights, and committing many illegal crimes," since 2017. Dkt. 1 at 2- 3. He seeks 3 million dollars along with the criminal prosecution of the defendants. II. Dismissal of Complaint The federal claims in this action are necessarily brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was

committed by a person acting under color of state law." L.P. v. Marian Catholic High Sch., 852 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). The amended complaint has not named any "person" who is allegedly responsible for violating Mr. Haines's federally secured rights. First, any claim against Putnamville Correctional Facility is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is a building, not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. White v. Knight, 710 F. App'x 260, 262 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 107 (2018); Looney v. Miami Corr. Facility, No. 3:18CV18- PPS/MGG, 2018 WL 1992197, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 27, 2018) (dismissing Miami Correctional Facility). Second, the staff of Putnamville Correctional Facility is dismissed because a group of people is not a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983, and a defendant can only be liable for

the actions or omissions in which he personally participated. Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001). "Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government- official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2015). III. Opportunity to Amend The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action at present. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through March 30, 2021, to file an amended complaint. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015) ("We've often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) a judge should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to amend his complaint."). The amended complaint must (a) contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which is sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (b) include a demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. The plaintiff is further notified that "[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 2:21-cv-001 19-JPH-DLP and the words "Amended Complaint" on the first page. The amended complaint will completely replace the original. See Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2017) ("For pleading purposes, once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture."). Therefore, it must set out every defendant, claim, and factual allegation the plaintiff wishes to pursue in this action. If the plaintiff files an amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no amended complaint is filed, this action will be dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/1/2021

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

RICKEY D. HAINES 115454 PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 1946 West U.S. Hwy 40 Greencastle, IN 46135