Opinion
CAUSE NO.: 3:15-CV-574 TLS
05-17-2016
WILLIAM PAUL ESTEP, Plaintiff, v. SGT. GARCIA, et al. Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
William Paul Estep, a pro se prisoner, began this case by filing a vague complaint [ECF No. 1] alleging that he was endangered by Sgt. Garcia and Captain Liews on June 28, 2015. He alleged that after he was attacked by two gangs, he threatened suicide when they were going to put him back into the same cell block. In response, he was written up and placed in segregation. Because of the deficiencies in the Complaint, he was granted leave to file an amended complaint.
In that Amended Complaint [ECF No. 10], he alleged that on June 28, 2015, he threatened to commit suicide because Sgt. Garcia refused to place him in protective custody. As a result, Sgt. Garcia kept him in a segregation cell overnight. The next morning, he again threatened to commit suicide when Captain Liews refused to place him in protective custody. Subsequently, they took him to the infirmary where he tried to kill himself the next day. In the Screening Order, the Court explained these allegations did not state a claim against these two Defendants, but that he might "be able to state a claim against one or more other individuals or entities who did not provide him with mental health treatment or protective custody." (Op. & Order 2, ECF No. 11.) The Court invited him to file another amended complaint because it appeared possible that he could name a new defendant whom he had told about his need for protective custody before he was attacked on June 28, 2015. Alternatively, it appeared possible that he could name a new defendant who did not properly act to prevent him from attempting suicide on June 30, 2015.
Estep has now filed a Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12]. However, he has not made any allegations based on the events in late June 2015. Instead, he is attempting to present new, unrelated claims against two different defendants based on failing to protect him from an attack on April 24, 2016. Even though both the June 2015 incident and the April 2016 incident involve claims for failing to protect him from attack from fellow inmates, these incidents are factually unrelated and must be brought in separate lawsuits. "Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . . ." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Because the April 2016 claims are unrelated to this lawsuit, the Court will not review their merits. If Estep wants to pursue those claims, he needs to file a new case, which he can do by obtaining a copy of this Court's complaint form from the prison law library. In this case, the Court has already determined that Estep has not stated a claim based on the June 2015 events. He has been granted leave to file two amended complaints, but neither states a claim based on the June 2015 events. Therefore, this case will be closed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12] is STRICKEN and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on May 17, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION