Opinion
3:23-CV-232-DRL-MGG
04-18-2023
KEVIN JAMES BURE, Plaintiff, v. CENTURION HEALTH SERVICE, LLC, and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
DAMON R. LEICHTY, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In his original complaint, Kevin James Bure, a prisoner without a lawyer, alleged he received inadequate medical treatment for a broken jaw. ECF 2. He sued Medical Director Livers and Centurion Health Service, LLC. The court screened the complaint and explained it did not state a claim against Director Livers because “[s]he is alleged to have mistakenly decided his jaw was not broken. Though medical mistakes are unfortunate, they do not violate the Eighth Amendment.” ECF 6 at 2. The complaint did not state a claim against Centurion because liability for a corporate entity only exists “when execution of a [corporation's] policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury.” Calhoun v. Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375, 379 (7th Cir. 2005). “This complaint makes no mention of a policy or custom. It merely alleges Director Livers mistakenly misdiagnosed his jaw.” ECF 6 at 2-3. Mr. Bure was granted leave to file an amended complaint.
In the amended complaint, he names two defendants: Centurion Health Service, LLC, and Indiana Department of Correction. He drops his claim against Director Livers.
“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.
Mr. Bure alleges the violation of Indiana Department of Correction Policy 01-02101 is the basis of his claim because it required he receive medical treatment. This addition to his amended complaint does not state a claim against either defendant. As previously explained, Centurion may only be held liable when the execution of its policy inflicts injury. The allegation that Policy 01-02-101 was violated does not make Centurion liable. As for the Indiana Department of Correction, it is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cannot be sued. See Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 438 (7th Cir. 2017) (a state agency is not a person that can be sued under section 1983) citing Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989).
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED.