Vazquez v. Allen Co. Jail et al, No. 1:2023cv00312 - Document 9 (N.D. Ind. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 08/31/2023. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (jdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vazquez v. Allen Co. Jail et al Doc. 9 USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00312-JVB-JEM document 9 filed 08/31/23 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION FRANCISCO M. VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 1:23-CV-312-JVB-JEM OPINION AND ORDER Francisco M. Vazquez, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a second amended complaint against the Allen County Jail. (ECF 7). “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. Vazquez’s earlier complaint named the Allen County Jail as a defendant. The court explained to Mr. Vazquez that the Allen County Jail is a building, not a “person” or policy making body that can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). In his second amended complaint, Mr. Vazquez names only one defendant: the Allen County Jail. As already explained, he cannot proceed against the jail. This second amended complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. “The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00312-JVB-JEM document 9 filed 08/31/23 page 2 of 2 early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). However, “courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.” Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons previously explained, such is the case here. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. SO ORDERED on August 31, 2023. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
