DICKENSON v. FINNAN et al, No. 2:2009cv00371 - Document 5 (S.D. Ind. 2009)

Court Description: ENTRY Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings; for reasons discussed in this Entry claims against "John Doe" defendant are dismissed; Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is dismissed. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to claims resolved in this Entry. Clerk is designated to issue and serve process on defendants Finnan, Smith, Trusty, Whoson, Leohn, Snyder, Ewers, in manner specified by Fed.R.Civ.P.4(d)(1). Process in this case shall consist of complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/17/2009. cm(NKD)

Download PDF

DICKENSON v. FINNAN et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JAMES DICKENSON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. SUPERINTENDENT ALAN FINNAN, et al., Defendants. No. 2:09-cv-371-WTL-TAB Entry Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims, And Directing Further Proceedings Plaintiff James Dickenson, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Dickenson alleges that he was placed in a disciplinary segregation for 21 days. During that time he was forced to eat nutraloaf for three meals a day, was denied prescription pain medication for his back, was denied access to a dentist to treat his broken tooth, and had his back brace confiscated. For 14 of the 21 days Dickenson spent in disciplinary segregation, he was kept in a strip cell where he was denied mail, recreation, clothes and the ability to shave or practice personal hygiene. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dickenson seeks money damages, costs, and the replacement of his back brace. I. A. Because Dickenson is a prisoner, the complaint is subject to the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Lagerstrom V. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). This statute requires that any complaint submitted by a prisoner, or any claim within such a complaint, be dismissed if the complaint or the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to this statute, "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). A valid complaint requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8(a)(2) does not require detailed factual allegations, the Supreme Court now requires it to include “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(discussing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Dockets.Justia.com B. Applying the standard set forth above, certain claims are subject to dismissal. 1. Claims against the “John Doe” defendant are dismissed, because “it is pointless to include [an] anonymous defendant[ ] in federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). 2. The Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is dismissed because it lacks facial plausibility. “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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). "The first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in property or liberty." American Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 119 S. Ct. 977, 989 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint fails to allege the liberty or property interest Dickenson claims he was deprived of without due process. To the extent the complaint could be read broadly to allege that Dickenson’s due process rights were violated when he was placed in segregation or when his back brace was confiscated, such claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Classifications of inmates implicate neither liberty nor property interests . . . .”) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)(“For intentional, as for negligent deprivations of property by state employees, the state's action is not complete until and unless it provides or refuses to provide a suitable post deprivation remedy.”); Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due.”). Dickenson’s claims are sufficiently based on the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. There is no occasion to invoke the important but limited protections of due process and equal protection. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) ("Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing such a claim.") (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.) (internal quotations omitted). No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. II. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on the defendants Superintendent Alan Finnan, Asst. Superintendent Brian Smith, Grievance Specialist Jamie Trusty, Correctional Officer Whoson, Counselor Leohn, Counselor Synder, and Property Officer K. Ewers, in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 12/17/2009 Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: James Dickenson DOC #974834 Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41 P.O. Box 1111 Carlisle, IN 47838-1111 Superintendent Alan Finnan Asst. Superintendent Brian Smith Grievance Specialist Jamie Trusty Correctional Officer Whoson Counselor Leohn Counselor Synder Property Officer K. Ewers All at: Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41 P.O. Box 1111 Carlisle, IN 47838-1111

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.