WIGGINTON v. GEO GROUP, INC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: April 22, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00675
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JUSTIN WIGGINTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00675-TWP-TAB ) GEO GROUP, INC., ) MARK SEVIER, ) CENTURION HEALTH, ) SWEENY, ) THALMAN, ) SHAW, ) HACKMAN, ) SIZEMORE, ) BEVANS, ) ) Defendants. )

Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings This matter is before the Court for screening of Plaintiff Justin Wigginton's ("Wigginton") Complaint. (Dkt. 1). Wigginton is a prisoner currently incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility. He filed this civil action in state court and defendant Centurion Health removed the case to federal court. Because Wigginton is a "prisoner," this Court has an obligation to screen the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). I. Screening Standard When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine 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 Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). II. The Complaint The complaint makes the following allegations against nine defendants: GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), Mark Sevier, Centurion Health (Centurion), Officer Sweeny, Officer Thalman, Sgt. Shaw, Sgt. Hackman, Sgt. Sizemore, and Bevans. Wigginton has vasculitis, an autoimmune disease that can be fatal if untreated. On January 9, 2024, while walking in a hallway his legs gave out and he collapsed. Officer Sweeny refused to signal a medical emergency. Instead, she called other correctional officers—Officer Thalman, Sgt. Shaw, Sgt. Hackman, and Sgt. Sizemore. These

defendants decided Wigginton did not require medical attention and told him to return to his pod even if he had to crawl there. Wigginton seeks monetary damages. III. Discussion of Claims Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall proceed as submitted. First, all claims against GEO and Centurion are dismissed for failure to state a claim. These entities "cannot be held liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior for constitutional violations committed by their employees. They can, however, be held liable for unconstitutional … policies or customs." Simpson v. Brown County, 860 F.3d 1001, 1005-6 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). The complaint does not allege that Wigginton suffered any constitutional deprivation caused by a policy or custom of GEO or Centurion. Second, all claims against Mark Sevier and Bevans are dismissed for failure to state a

claim. "For constitutional violations under § 1983 or Bivens, a government official is only liable for his or her own misconduct." Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Thus "[a] damages suit under § 1983 requires that a defendant be personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation." Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); see Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires 'personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.'"). The complaint does not allege that either defendant Sevier or Bevans were personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation. Third, Wigginton's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim shall proceed against Officer Sweeny, Officer Thalman, Sgt. Shaw, Sgt. Hackman, and Sgt. Sizemore. This is the only

viable claim identified by the Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through May 22, 2024, in which to identify those claims. The clerk is directed to terminate GEO, Centurion, Sevier, and Bevans as defendants on the docket. IV. Service of Process The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Sweeny, Thalman, Shaw, Hackman, and Sizemore in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (dkt. [1-2]), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 4/22/2024 O A atta tk Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JUSTIN WIGGINTON 293280 NEW CASTLE - CF NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362 Robert C. Brandt RILEY BENNETT EGLOFF LLP rbrandt@rbelaw.com Beau Browning Riley Bennett Egloff LLP bbrowning@rbelaw.com

Officer Sweeny NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Employee 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

Officer Thalman NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Employee 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

Sgt. Shaw NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Employee 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

Sgt. Hackman NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Employee 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

Sgt. Sizemore NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Employee 1000 Van Nuys Road P.O. Box E NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

Courtesy copy to: Adam Garth Forrest BBFCS ATTORNEYS 27 North Eighth Street Richmond, IN 47374