Cape v. St Joseph County Jail, No. 3:2021cv00654 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Paul Michael Cape until 10/25/2021, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONS Mr. Cape if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/22/2021. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc) Modified on 9/22/2021 to edit text (lhc).

Download PDF
Cape v. St Joseph County Jail Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION PAUL MICHAEL CAPE, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-654-RLM-MGG ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Paul Michael Cape, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint regarding inadequate medical care and various conditions of confinement at the St. Joseph County Jail. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. “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). Mr. Cape has named only one defendant: the St. Joseph County Jail. The St. Joseph County Jail is a building. It is not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Because Mr. Cape hasn’t named a defendant who can be held responsible, this complaint doesn’t state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He may file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 Dockets.Justia.com (7th Cir. 2013); Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 2006). In any amended complaint, Mr. Cape should explain in his own words what happened, when it happened, where it happened, who was involved, and how he was personally injured by the conditions he describes, providing as much detail as possible. Mr. Cape should keep in mind that “public employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s,” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009), and that he can’t sue different defendants based on unrelated events. “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . ..” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). See also Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2017). For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Paul Michael Cape until October 25, 2021, to file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Mr. Cape if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. SO ORDERED on September 22, 2021 s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 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.