UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARCUS HENDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-242 JD 

vs. )

)

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Marcus Henderson, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1.) “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, “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 citations omitted).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. Thus, a 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).

Henderson is currently incarcerated at the Pact Bradley House in Michigan City, Indiana. 

Henderson alleges that sometime while incarcerated at the St. Joseph County Jail, he expressed
concern about being housed in a dangerous pod and requested to be moved to a safer location within

the jail. However, his request was denied and he was then assaulted by fellow inmates two months

later. Under the Eighth Amendment, correctional officials have a constitutional duty to protect

inmates “from violence at the hand of other inmates.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 777

(7th Cir. 2008). However, a failure to protect claim cannot be predicated “merely on knowledge

of general risks of violence in a detention facility.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 913 (7th Cir.

2005). Here, Henderson makes only general assertions that he believed his housing assignment

posed a threat to him. He does not state whether he faced any specific threat, if he communicated

that threat to anyone, or why his request was denied. He also has not stated when any of these

events occurred.

Next, Henderson claims that he was denied access to the South Bend Police Department and

his attorney following the assault. He requested the South Bend Police be contacted so that he could

make a police report and have pictures taken of his injuries. Nevertheless, Henderson was denied

access to the South Bend Police and his attorney until his injuries healed. Despite these allegations,

he fails to clearly explain this incident in sufficient detail, too. It is unclear who denied him this

access, why he was denied this access, or when he was denied this access. It is also unclear whether

this delay resulted in Henderson suffering any harm. While Henderson sues a number of “John Doe”

defendants, it is unknown who these individuals are and how they were involved in the violation of

his rights. Without these details, it is not possible to discern whether Henderson has stated a

plausible claim against any defendant. 

Because this complaint is vague, Henderson 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,

he needs to sets forth his claims in sufficient detail and address the deficiencies raised in this order.
In the amended complaint, he should 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.

As a final matter, Henderson did not pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis

petition accompanied by his trust fund ledgers for the past six months as required by 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(2). His case cannot be screened or otherwise allowed to proceed until he resolves his fee

status.

For these reasons, the court:

(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 packet and send it to Marcus Henderson;

(2) GRANTS Marcus Henderson to and including July 20, 2015, to resolve his filing fee

status and file an amended complaint; and

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

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 22, 2015

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court