Lott v. Redman et al, No. 3:2021cv00695 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES William J. Redman and St. Joseph County Jail Medical Provider; GRANTS Shane Anthony Lott until 11/15/2021, to file an amended complaint; and CAUTIONS Shane Anthony Lott if he does not respond by the deadlin e, this case will be dismissed under 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 Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 10/7/2021. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lott v. Redman et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION SHANE ANTHONY LOTT, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-695-JD-MGG WILLIAM J. REDMAN, and ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL PROVIDER, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Shane Anthony Lott, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint seeking monetary damages because he was denied medical treatment and a special diet at the St. Joseph County Jail. ECF 1. “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. Lott alleges when he was booked into the Jail on August 23, 2021, he was withdrawing from heroin and methamphetamines. He alleges he had jaundice. He says he was not seen by medical staff for two days. Once seen, he was tested, but did not receive treatment for either condition. Exhibits attached to the complaint show he was Dockets.Justia.com evaluated and scheduled to see a doctor. He also alleges he has no teeth and has not been given a special diet. A pre-trial detainee cannot be punished without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). However, “[i]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” Id. at 539. “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the detainee.” Id. “[I]n the absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not ‘rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 398 (2015) (quoting Bell). However, for a pre-trial detainee to establish a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, “it will not be enough to show negligence or gross negligence.” Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353 (7th Cir. 2018). “[M]edical-care claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment are subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry identified in Kingsley [v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)].” Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018). The first consideration is “whether the medical defendants acted purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly when they considered the consequences of their handling of plaintiff’s case.” McCann v. Ogle Cnty., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). Then, the court 2 considers “whether the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable,” based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. Id. Here, Lott does not describe his medical symptoms. He does not explain what treatment or diet he believes he should have received. He does not identify any injury he suffered. In sum, he does not provide facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that anyone at the jail acted in an objectively unreasonable manner. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content 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). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, “a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Moreover, Lott has not named a proper defendant. The complaint alleges Sheriff Redman employs the medical staff. It alleges the St. Joseph County Jail Medical 3 Provider employs staff who are not providing him with medical treatment. However, there is no general supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009). “Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). [P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the named defendants will be dismissed. This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted, but Lott may file an amended complaint if he believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. After he properly completes that form addressing the issues raised in this order, he needs to send it to the court. For these reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES William J. Redman and St. Joseph County Jail Medical Provider; (2) GRANTS Shane Anthony Lott until November 15, 2021, to file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Shane Anthony Lott if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. 4 SO ORDERED on October 7, 2021 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5
]]>
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.
