IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

 HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE 

MATTHEW MARSHALL FLOWERS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) CAUSE NO. 4:16-CV-014 

vs. ) 

) 

TRACY BROWN, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed by 

Matthew Marshall Flowers, a pro se prisoner, on February 12, 2016. 

For the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION 

 “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and 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). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint. 

 Flowers alleges that while he was a pre-trial detainee in the 

Tippecanoe County Jail, he was limited to two visits to the law 
library each week to prepare for his criminal trial where he 

represented himself. “In evaluating the constitutionality of 

conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention . . . the proper 

inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the 

detainee.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “[I]n the 

absence of an expressed intent to punish, a pretrial detainee can 

nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are not 

‘rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental 

purpose’ or that the actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that 

purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. __, __; 135 S.Ct. 

2466, 2473 (2015) (quoting Bell). 

 The only defendant named in the complaint is the Tippecanoe 

County Sheriff. Flowers does not allege that the Sheriff knew 

anything about his case. Rather the Sheriff is merely alleged to 

be in charge of the jail. Though true, this is insufficient to 

state a claim because there is no general respondeat superior 

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Only persons who cause or 

participate in the violations are responsible.” George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “[P]ublic employees are 

responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” 

Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore 

Flowers has not stated a claim against Tracy Brown. 

Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one 

opportunity to amend after dismissing a complaint[,] that’s 
unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the 

complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise 

unwarranted.” Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, No. 15-2732, __ 

Fed. Appx. __, __, 2016 WL 412839, at *2 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) 

(quotation marks omitted). See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 

(7th Cir. 2013) and Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 

(7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to 

amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.”). 

Here, the complaint makes clear that Flowers made no effort 

to inform jail officials that he needed more time in the law 

library. “The [correctional officer] told me to write to Captain 

Saxton about it, which I did not because my ‘conscience’ know I 

did not have to ask for GOD-GIVEN Constitutional Rights.” DE 1 at 

3. That guard was not punishing Flowers when he told him how he 

could get more time in the law library. Neither was giving Flowers 

this information irrational nor excessive. Therefore an amendment 

adding that guard would be futile. Inmate time in the library must 

be scheduled. Flowers had two visits per week. If he needed more, 

he was told to let Captain Saxton know so that more time could be 

scheduled. But he did not tell Captain Saxton. Therefore Captain 

Saxton was neither punishing him nor acting irrationally or 

excessively when he did not increase Flower’s library time. Thus 

an amendment adding Captain Saxton would also be futile. 
CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DATED: February 19, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United State District Court