Opinion
3:24-CV-704-JVB-JEM
12-19-2024
SEAN D. GATES, Plaintiff, v. DOCTORS, OFFICERS, JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE.
Sean D. Gates, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. (ECF 2). “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.
Gates alleges that on March 6, 2024, two unknown officers from Indiana State Prison (“ISP”) transported him to Westville Correctional Facility (“WCF”). He alleges that during the transport, his wrists were placed in a “black-box restraint,” which caused him excruciating pain because the restraints were placed on him improperly. (ECF 2 at 2). Gates complained that the “box” was causing him ongoing pain during the trip, but the officers refused to reset it, saying it, “It doesn't matter, we have to go!!” Id. at 2. The whole transport, Gates was in excruciating pain, but the transport officers just smiled at him the whole time, enjoying his pain. He alleges his right wrist and thumb have been numb from the pain ever since.
Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994). Too-tight handcuffs can sometimes constitute excessive force. See Tibbs v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2006) (discussing cases). The “core requirement” of an excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment is that the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted). Here, there are no allegations that the officers purposely placed the restraints improperly to cause Gates pain. But the allegations state that Gates made the officers aware that he was in excruciating pain, yet the officers took no action to relieve the pain. Keeping Gates in unnecessary pain during the transport could constitute excessive force. Gates may proceed against the two ISP transport officers on a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment.
Gates, however, has not identified the transport officers, and this is necessary for the case to proceed. The Court has a duty to assist him in discovering their identities. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1428 (7th Cir. 1996); Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). Thus, the Warden of Indiana State Prison in his official capacity will be made a defendant only to identify the unknown transport officers based on the information available in the complaint.
Gates next alleges the doctors at Westville refused to give him any medical relief because they don't want to spend money on him, leaving him in pain and unable to feel his hand and thumb. Under the Eighth Amendment, prison medical providers may not be deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). But the complaint is short on facts, dates, and specifics about the medical treatment Gates has received. Without knowing about what interactions he had with the medical system at WCF and which individuals provided him treatment, it is not plausible to infer that any individual was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 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) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This claim will be dismissed.
Gates lists as a defendant unnamed Westville Correctional Facility Doctors. (ECF 2 at 1). The complaint does not contain enough information to state a claim against these unknown doctors. But, even if it did, Gates cannot proceed against unknown defendants, and he does not provide enough information in the complaint for the Court to assist with identifying them.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Sean D. Gates leave to proceed against the two transport officers from Indiana State Prison who transported him to Westville Correctional Facility on or around March 6, 2024, in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to relieve the excruciating pain caused by the black-box restraint during the trip in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DISMISSES Doctors, Officers;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk to add as a defendant the Warden of Indiana State Prison in his official capacity only for the purpose of identifying the unknown transport officers;
(5) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) the Warden of Indiana State Prison at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 2);
(6) WAIVES the Warden of Indiana State Prison's obligation to file an answer to the complaint;
(7) ORDERS the Warden of Indiana State Prison to appear and identify the unknown officers described in the complaint who transported Sean D. Gates on or around March 6, 2024, from Indiana State Prison to Westville Correctional Facility by or before January 22, 2025 , or show cause why he is unable to do so.
SO ORDERED.