Opinion
1:22-cv-00439-TWP-MG
06-09-2022
R. PEACHER, Plaintiff, v. JAMIE DOWNS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, United States District Court Chief Judge
Plaintiff Robert Peacher ("Mr. Peacher") is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility. He filed this civil action alleging that, after he filed lawsuits against a staff member at the prison, the defendants retaliated against him by destroying his legal documents and personal property. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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, 851 F.3d at 720.
II. Screening the Complaint
The complaint names two defendants: Jamie Downs ("Officer Downs") and Dustin Ruckman ("Officer Ruckman"). He sues both in their personal capacities. Mr. Peacher seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He also wants both Officer Downs and Officer Ruckman fired.
For screening purposes, the Court treats the complaint's allegations as true. Mr. Peacher filed a lawsuit against Pendleton Correctional Facility Sergeant Melissa Morados ("Sergeant Morados"). In December 2021, Officer Downs and Officer Ruckman searched Mr. Peacher's cell. During the search, they destroyed legal documents related to the suit against Officer Morados and some items of Mr. Peacher's personal property. Officer Downs told Mr. Peacher that she was "getting back at" Mr. Peacher for filing the lawsuit against Sergeant Morados.
Mr. Peacher's First Amendment retaliation claims against Officer Downs and Officer Ruckman shall proceed. Any claims not identified are dismissed. If Mr. Peacher believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint but not identified by the Court, he shall have through July 5, 2022, to identify those claims.
The Court notes that Mr. Peacher has not sued anyone with authority to provide the requested injunctive relief-the firing of Officers Downs and Ruckman. But while this requested relief is inappropriate, "the demand [for relief] is not itself a part of the plaintiff's claim." Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2002).
III. Service of Process
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Jamie Downs and Dustin Ruckman in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt [2], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
Both defendants are alleged to be Indiana Department of Correction employees. The clerk is directed to serve them electronically.
IT IS SO ORDERED.