UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

STEVEN M. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-340-TLS

v. )

)

JOHN BUNCICH, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Steven M. Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review 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. Under federal pleading

standards,

a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. To survive dismissal, the 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). 

Here, Johnson alleges that due to very unsanitary conditions at the Lake County Jail, he

contracted a painful and irritating skin condition called “scabies.” He states that guards fail to
give out cleaning supplies when requested, and that when he complained about the lack of clean

showers a guard brushed off his concerns. He further alleges that he had to share hair and nail

clippers with an inmate with hepatitis C. The conditions he describes could give rise to a

constitutional claim, but Sheriff John Buncich is the only Defendant named in the Complaint.

There is nothing in the factual allegation from which it can be plausibly inferred that Sheriff

Buncich was personally involved in these events. Rather, Johnson appears to be trying to hold

the Sheriff liable as the official responsible for overseeing operations at the jail. (ECF No. 1 at

3.) However, there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

Sheriff Buncich cannot be held liable simply because he is a supervisory official at the jail.

Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Burks v. Raemisch, 555

F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but

not for anyone else’s.”). He references three different guards who rejected his grievances, but it

is not clear if he is trying to sue these individuals, since he did not list them as defendants or

provide documents needed for service on these individuals. Without more detail, it is not clear

who he is trying to sue, and whether he can state a plausible deliberate indifference claim against

any defendant.

When a complaint is vague or lacking in necessary detail, the court is “within its rights”

to dismiss the complaint with leave to replead. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.

2006). Accordingly, the Court will strike the Complaint and afford Johnson an opportunity to

replead his claim. In his amended complaint, he may allege additional detail showing that the

Sheriff was personally involved in these events and/or he may name other defendants who were

personally involved in these events. He should explain in his own words what happened, where

2
it happened, when it happened, and who was involved, providing as much detail as possible. He

should explain how each defendant was personally involved in the violation of his rights. If he

names additional defendants, he must provide properly completed summons and USM-285 forms

for each one. He has already provided these documents for Sheriff Buncich and it is unnecessary

for him to do so again.

For these reasons, the Court:

(1) STRIKES the Complaint (ECF No. 1);

(2) DIRECTS the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner Complaint 42

U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to the Plaintiff, along with 10 blank summons forms and 5 blank

USM-285 forms;

(3) GRANTS the Plaintiff to and including November 18, 2013, to file an amended

complaint and return properly completed summons and USM-285 forms for each defendant; and

(4) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case is subject to

dismissal without further notice for failure to prosecute. 

SO ORDERED on October 8, 2013.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

3