UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DEMAJIO JEROME ELLIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-620 RL 

vs. )

)

SERGEANT MR. PRYOR, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Demajio Jerome Ellis, a pro se prisoner, filed a vague

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1.) The court must review

the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v.

Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “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.” Id. at 603.

Thus, 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).

-1-
Nevertheless, the court must bear in mind that “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) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). 

Here, Ellis complains about events that occurred on June 10,

2016,while he was an inmate at the Westville Correctional Facility. 

Without much detail, he states that Sergeant Flakes sprayed him

with a strong version of pepper spray and Sergeant Pryor deployed

a taser due to his refusal to put his hands through the cuff port

as requested. Ellis alleges these two officers used excessive

force.

The “core requirement” for an excessive force claim is that

the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically to cause

harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009)

(citation omitted). Several factors guide the inquiry of whether an

officer’s use of force was legitimate or malicious, including the

need for an application of force, the amount of force used, and the

extent of the injury suffered by the prisoner. Id.

The court cannot weigh these factors here due to the gaps in

Ellis’s account. It appears that he brings suit against these

officers because he was injured by their actions. However, merely

being injured by an officer does not state a claim for excessive

-2-
force. Hendrickson, 589 F.3d at 473. He does not explain enough

detail of what transpired between him and these officers that led

to the officers’ use of force. He does not address whether the use

of the officers’ force was legitimate or whether there was a need

for the officers’ application of force. Nor does he describe the

extent of his injures. Without more information about the

circumstances surrounding his interactions with Sergeant Flakes and

Sergeant Pryor, the court cannot determine whether he states a

plausible excessive force claim.

Because this complaint is vague, Ellis will be granted leave

to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d

1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In his amended complaint, Ellis needs to set

forth his claims against the officers in sufficient detail and

address the deficiencies raised in this order. In the amended

complaint, he should fully explain in his own words what happened,

when it happened, where it happened, and who was involved. He may

attach any documentation he has in his possession or can obtain

related to his claims.

 For these reasons, the Court:

(1) DIRECTS the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank

Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Demajio Jerome Ellis;

(2) GRANTS Demajio Jerome Ellis until January 9, 2017, to file

an amended complaint; and

(3) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by the deadline,

-3-
this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because

the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can

be granted. 

DATED: December 12, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United States District Court

-4-