UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE 

BRANDON SAVAGE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ANDREW D. VANHORN, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 4:15-CV-044 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Brandon Savage filed a pro se complaint asserting a civil rights claim against 

Andrew D. VanHorn. [DE 1]. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Southern District of Indiana, 

which transferred the action to this Court because the underlying events took place in Lafayette, 

which is located in the Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiff also filed a petition for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. [DE 2]. While the Plaintiff meets the financial requirements to 

proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the Court also has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) to dismiss a complaint if the Court determines that it “fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted.” 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, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted). 

When a complaint is confusing or lacking in necessary detail, the district court is “within its 

rights” to dismiss the complaint with leave to replead. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 

(7th Cir. 2006). 
2 

Mr. Savage appears to bring this action based on an assault he suffered by the Defendant, 

who was a fellow patient in a psychiatric hospital. Mr. Savage filled out his complaint in a form 

for civil rights claims, but to state a claim for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 

defendant must have acted under color of state law. Mr. Savage’s complaint does not suggest 

that the Defendant, Andrew D. VanHorn, was acting under state law, though; it appears that Mr. 

VanHorn merely happened to be a patient in the same hospital as Mr. Savage, not a police officer 

or some other individual acting under color of law. Accordingly, Mr. Savage’s complaint fails to 

state a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. 

That is not to say that Mr. Savage has no legal recourse against Mr. VanHorn. If Mr. 

VanHorn assaulted him, Mr. Savage may have a cause of action against Mr. VanHorn under state 

law. But unless Mr. Savage and Mr. VanHorn are citizens of different states and Mr. Savage is 

seeking over $75,000 in damages, or unless Mr. Savage presents some other basis for federal 

jurisdiction, this Court would not have jurisdiction over this claim, and Mr. Savage would need 

to pursue it in state court. Nonetheless, the Court will give Mr. Savage an opportunity to amend 

his complaint should he wish to attempt to cure these deficiencies. 

The Court also notes that Mr. Savage has filed a form entitled “Motion for Witness.” 

However, the form itself is blank, so it is not clear what relief Mr. Savage is seeking in this 

filing. The Court therefore denies this motion. [DE 3]. 

For these reasons, the court: 

(1) STRIKES the complaint [DE 1]; 

(2) TAKES the in forma pauperis petition [DE 2] under advisement; 

(3) GRANTS the Plaintiff to and including June 17, 2015, to file an amended 

complaint; 
3 

(4) CAUTIONS the Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will 

be dismissed without further notice; and 

(5) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Witness [DE 3]. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: May 18, 2015 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court