SMITH v. BROWN

S.D. Indiana

SMITH v. BROWN

District Court, S.D. Indiana·Decided April 21, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-00257·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAMES A. SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:19-cv-00257-JPH-MJD ) RICHARD BROWN Warden Wabash Valley ) Correctional Facility, ) FRANK LITTLEJOHN Assistant Warden Wabash ) Valley Correctional Facility, ) JERRY SNYDER SCV Unit Team Manager, ) ) Defendants. )

ENTRY ON MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff James A. Smith is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Counsel has appeared on the plaintiff’s behalf and seeks leave to amend the complaint. The motion for leave to amend, dkt. [39], is GRANTED. The amended complaint must be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). The amended complaint names 15 defendants. Mr. Smith alleges that he was confined in long-term segregation without due process and under unconstitutional conditions. He alleges violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also brings state law tort claims. These claims shall proceed as presented. This screening Entry, however, does not preclude the defendants from filing a motion to dismiss challenging the legal sufficiency of any claims in the amended complaint. The Court dismisses all claims brought against John Doe defendants because “it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed .R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) Gnternal citations omitted). If Mr. Smith learns the identity of additional defendants in the future, he may file a second motion for leave to amend his complaint. Mr. Smith shall re-file the amended complaint and issue process to the defendants not already served. SO ORDERED. Date: 4/21/2020

Slam ruck lbanlove Distribution: James Patrick Hanlon , United States District Judge Jeffrey R. Cardella Southern District of Indiana LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC jeffcardella@ cardellalawoffice.com Thomas Joseph Flynn INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL tom.flynn @atg.in.gov Joshua Robert Lowry INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL joshua.lowry @ atg.in.gov

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JAMES A. SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:19-cv-00257-JPH-MJD ) RICHARD BROWN Warden Wabash Valley ) Correctional Facility, ) FRANK LITTLEJOHN Assistant Warden Wabash ) Valley Correctional Facility, ) JERRY SNYDER SCV Unit Team Manager, ) ) Defendants. )

ENTRY ON MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff James A. Smith is an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Counsel has appeared on the plaintiff’s behalf and seeks leave to amend the complaint. The motion for leave to amend, dkt. [39], is GRANTED. The amended complaint must be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). The amended complaint names 15 defendants. Mr. Smith alleges that he was confined in long-term segregation without due process and under unconstitutional conditions. He alleges violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also brings state law tort claims. These claims shall proceed as presented. This screening Entry, however, does not preclude the defendants from filing a motion to dismiss challenging the legal sufficiency of any claims in the amended complaint. The Court dismisses all claims brought against John Doe defendants because “it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed .R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) Gnternal citations omitted). If Mr. Smith learns the identity of additional defendants in the future, he may file a second motion for leave to amend his complaint. Mr. Smith shall re-file the amended complaint and issue process to the defendants not already served. SO ORDERED. Date: 4/21/2020

Slam ruck lbanlove Distribution: James Patrick Hanlon , United States District Judge Jeffrey R. Cardella Southern District of Indiana LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC jeffcardella@ cardellalawoffice.com Thomas Joseph Flynn INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL tom.flynn @atg.in.gov Joshua Robert Lowry INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL joshua.lowry @ atg.in.gov

SMITH v. BROWN, (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Pincite

SMITH v. BROWN (SMITH v. BROWN) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related