Warren v. Marshall County Jail ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION FORREST LANE WARREN, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 3:19-CV-677-PPS-MGG MARSHALL COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Forrest Lane Warren, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). In the complaint, Warren alleges that he has been subjected to overcrowded conditions at the Marshall County Jail. Because Warren is a pretrial detainee, I must assess his claims under the Fourteenth Amendment instead of the Eighth Amendment. See Mulvania v. Sheriff of Rock Island Cnty., 850 F.3d 849, 856 (7th Cir. 2017). “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits holding pretrial detainees in conditions that amount to punishment.” Id. (internal quotation omitted.) “A pretrial condition can amount to punishment in two ways: first, if it is imposed for the purpose of punishment, or second, if the condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the government action is punishment.” Id. (internal quotation omitted.) A pretrial detainee can “prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473-74 (2015). While Warren may be able to assert a valid Fourteenth Amendment claim, he has named only the Marshall County Jail as a defendant. Though the Marshall County Jail is where these events occurred, the jail is a building, not an individual or even a policy-making unit of government that can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, Warren may not proceed on this complaint. Nevertheless, Warren may file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he chooses to file an amended complaint, he should use the court’s approved form and must put the case number of this case on it, which is on the first page of this order. He must describe his interactions with each individual defendant in detail, including names, dates, location, and explain how each defendant was responsible for harming him. For these reasons, the Court: (1) GRANTS Forrest Lane Warren until January 17, 2020, to file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Forrest Lane Warren that, if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: December 17, 2019. /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT