Kavis v. English

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00389
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TROY A. KAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 1:25-CV-389-CCB-SJF

ENGLISH,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Troy A. Kavis, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate at the Miami Correctional Facility. 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. Kavis alleges his cellmate drugged his coffee and anally raped him on April 3, 2025. Under the Eighth Amendment, correctional officials have a constitutional duty to protect inmates from violence. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994). To state a failure to protect claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege “the defendant had actual knowledge of an impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred from the defendant’s failure to prevent it.” Santiago v. Wells, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540

F.3d 633, 639-40 (7th Cir. 2008). Kavis sues only Warden English. He alleges Warden English knew his cell did not have a call box. The mere lack of a call box does not plausibly allege that Warden English had actual knowledge of impending harm to Kavis. 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, 555 F.3d at 596. The complaint does not state a claim against Warden English. If Kavis 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 Troy A. Kavis until August 18, 2025, to file an amended complaint; and

(2) CAUTIONS Troy A. Kavis 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 July 14, 2025.

/s/Cristal C. Brisco CRISTAL C. BRISCO, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT