Damond Lamont McCauley, Jr. v. Murry Lt., et al.

McCauley · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · March 17, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-02481-JRO-MG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed Damond Lamont McCauley, Jr.'s prisoner civil-rights complaint at the screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege personal involvement or deliberate indifference supporting an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and that several additional allegations were unrelated or lacked identified responsible defendants. The court granted McCauley leave to file an amended complaint by April 17, 2026.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to state a claim against Sollose because it contained no allegations establishing her personal involvement or a causal connection to the alleged constitutional deprivation.
  2. The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because it did not allege sufficient facts concerning the duration and objective seriousness of the conditions or establish that Murray and Kmetz knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.
  3. Claims concerning inadequate medical care, medication, grievance processes, dirty showers, and separate cell conditions could not be pursued together merely as a general list of grievances without allegations connecting the defendants and events as required by Rule 20(a)(2).
  4. The court granted McCauley leave to file an amended complaint because the case was at an early stage and amendment might cure the pleading deficiencies.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a conditions-of-confinement claim under the Eighth Amendment against Lt. Murray and Kmetz.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a claim against Sollose when it contained no allegations of her personal involvement.
  3. Whether the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims concerning medical care, medication, showers, grievances, and another cell placement.
  4. Whether McCauley should be granted leave to amend after dismissal at the early screening stage.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (18)

  • Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 491 (7th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1051 (7th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)(followed)
  • Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 720 (7th Cir. 2021)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…