Durell T. Crain v. Christina Reagle, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana screens a prisoner’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismisses unrelated claims and defendants concerning events at Indiana State Prison, rejects failure-to-protect and inadequate-investigation claims concerning alleged inmate threats, and permits limited First Amendment retaliation claims against certain prison officials. The order also addresses the plaintiff’s repeated emergency motions and requests for injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. Claims concerning events at the Indiana State Prison were unrelated to the claims concerning events at the Westville Correctional Facility and were dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
2. Crain failed to state an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim because allegations that inmates smoked or burned toilet paper near his cell did not plausibly establish a specific, credible, and imminent risk of serious harm or a known assailant.
3. Crain plausibly stated First Amendment retaliation claims against U.T.M. Tracy Cornett and Captain Rippe based on allegations that they moved an inmate Crain considered dangerous into his block in response to his complaints to the IDOC Tips line and about officers.
4. Crain plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Nurse Hickman based on allegations that she restricted his access to his inhaler after he reported her to internal affairs.
5. Crain could not proceed against Cornett or Rippe based on their alleged failure to investigate or prosecute the alleged plot against him.
6. Crain's claims for permanent and preliminary injunctive relief against officials at the Westville facility became moot after his transfer to Newcastle Correctional Facility, absent a showing that he was likely to be retransferred.
7. Allegations that Lt. Robinson lied about cell availability and that the Jane Doe mental-health doctor approved Crain's return to his cell did not plausibly state constitutional claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crain's claims concerning events at the Indiana State Prison were sufficiently related to his Westville Correctional Facility claims to proceed in the same action.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim based on alleged smoking or burning of toilet paper near Crain's cell.
3. Whether Crain plausibly stated First Amendment retaliation claims against Tracy Cornett and Captain Rippe based on moving an allegedly threatening inmate into his block after Crain complained to prison officials.
4. Whether Crain plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Nurse Hickman based on restricting access to his inhaler after he reported her to internal affairs.
5. Whether Crain had a constitutional right to an investigation or prosecution of the alleged plot against him.
6. Whether allegations that Lt. Robinson lied about cell availability and that a mental-health worker approved Crain's return to his cell stated constitutional claims.
7. Whether Crain's requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief were moot after his transfer to another facility.

Disposition

other