LEE v. BIRD
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION
WILLIAM M. LEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:22-cv-00053-TWP-DML ) B. BIRD Correction Officer, ) MYERS Sgt. Correction Officer, ) D. LOCK Sgt. Correction Officer, ) PREVITERA Correction Officer, ) ) Defendants. )
Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings Plaintiff William M. Lee is a prisoner currently incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at Floyd County Jail in New Albany, Indiana. He alleges in this civil action that the defendants used excessive force against him and failed to provide him medical treatment. Because Mr. Lee is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. I. Screening Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 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. In determining 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, [the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 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). 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. Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720 (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)). II. The Complaint The complaint names four defendants: Officer B. Bird, Sgt. Myers, Sgt. D. Lock, and Officer Previtera. Mr. Lee alleges that on February 23, 2022, Sgt. Myers ordered Sgt. Lock to remove Mr. Lee from his dorm. Mr. Lee was handcuffed. When his jumpsuit fell to his ankles, he struggled to walk. He tried to explain to Officer Bird why he couldn't walk, but he was forced to the ground and assaulted by Myers, Lock, and Bird. Sgt. Lock choked Mr. Lee. Officer Previtera watched the attack and did not intervene. Mr. Lee's injuries included a head wound, broken tooth, cuts, bruises, and neck and back pain. He was left in a padded cell for days with no shower or medical treatment. Due to his injured back, he could not stand. He was forced to urinate while lying on the floor. He seeks injunctive relief and money damages. III. Discussion of Claims Eighth Amendment claims shall proceed against the defendants for excessive force, failure
to protect, and deliberate indifference. This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the Court. If Mr. Lee believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through July 11, 2022, in which to identify those claims. IV. Service of Process The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (dkt. [1]), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: 6/10/2022 Qrenee Dte Leath Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: WILLIAM M. LEE 65031 FLOYD COUNTY JAIL Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 1406 New Albany, IN 47150 B. Bird, employee FLOYD COUNTY JAIL 311 Hauss Square New Albany, IN 47150 Sgt. Myers, employee FLOYD COUNTY JAIL 311 Hauss Square New Albany, IN 47150 D. Lock, employee FLOYD COUNTY JAIL 311 Hauss Square New Albany, IN 47150 Officer Previtera, employee FLOYD COUNTY JAIL 311 Hauss Square New Albany, IN 47150
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LEE v. BIRD (LEE v. BIRD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.