UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DENNIS E. DATES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Cause No. 2:16-cv-13

vs. )

)

PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF ) 

RICHWINE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Dennis E. Dates, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging that the conditions of confinement during his pretrial detention at the Pulaski

County Jail were unconstitutional. (DE 1.) I am required to review all prisoner

complaints against government officers and employees and to dismiss any that 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. As explained below,

Dates has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and so this action

must be dismissed unless Dates files an amended complaint that states a plausible

claim.

To survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Dates’ complaint must state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d

599, 602–3 (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 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). In reviewing the complaint I must keep in mind that a pro se complaint is held

to a less stringent standard than complaints drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require a plaintiff to allege:

“(1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the

defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir.

2006) (citation omitted). Dates sues Sheriff Richwine, Nurse Doreen, and unnamed

correctional officers for allegedly unconstitutional conditions at the Pulaski County Jail.

Because Dates was a pretrial detainee at the time of these events, the Fourteenth

Amendment applies, rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d

467, 473 (7th Cir. 2009). But the governing standards are functionally equivalent, and

“anything that would violate the Eighth Amendment would also violate the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Id. (citation omitted). “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).

For conditions of confinement to be unconstitutional, they must be

“unquestioned and serious deprivation of basic human needs” and deprive prisoners of

“the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

349 (1981). At a minimum, inmates are entitled to adequate food, clothing, shelter,

medical care, bedding, hygiene materials, and sanitation. See Knight v. Wiseman, 590

2
F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). Different

conditions of confinement taken together may violate an inmate’s constitutional rights,

even though each condition alone would not satisfy the standard. Gillis, 468 F.3d at 493.

First, Dates alleges that Sheriff Richwine and Nurse Doreen allowed correctional

officers to pass out medications at the jail even though officers are not qualified to do

so. Even if the officers were unqualified, that alone would not be enough to state a claim

because Dates has not alleged that he suffered any harm. See Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d

494, 502 (7th Cir. 2000). As such, Dates has failed to state plausible claims against Sheriff

Richwine and Nurse Doreen.

Second, Dates alleges he was denied a complete food tray on December 13, 2015.

As a threshold matter, the complaint does not identify the individual(s) involved. See

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.”). In addition, not every instance of

withholding food amounts to a constitutional violation. Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849,

853 (7th Cir. 1999). Instead, the amount and duration of the deprivation must be

assessed. Id. Missing a single meal (or part of one) is a trifle, and does not constitute a

constitutional violation. See, e.g., Peace v. Strahota, No. 14-cv-1608, 2015 WL 3853031, *4

(E.D. Wisc. June 22, 2015); Curiel v. Stigler, No. 06-cv-5880, 2008 WL 904894, *5 (N.D. Ill.

Mar. 31, 2008); Woods v. Schmeltz, No. 14-cv-1336, 2014 WL 4947340, *1 (C.D. Ill. Oct 2,

2014). This is especially true here, where Dates alleges no resulting harm from missing

that meal. Accordingly, Dates has failed to allege a plausible claim for relief based upon

3
the denial of a complete meal on December 13, 2015.

Third, Dates complains that he (along with the other inmates housed in G Block)

was not permitted to attend a religious program held at the jail on December 15, 2015.

He does not say why he was not allowed to attend the program or argue that the jail’s

reason for denying him access was impermissible. The mere fact that Dates was not

allowed to attend a religious program does not mean he has a constitutional claim.

There are a number of legitimate reasons a jail can restrict inmates from exercising their

religious beliefs. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 546-47 (recognizing that the right to exercise one's

First Amendment rights may be restricted in jail in order to achieve legitimate

correctional goals and to maintain institutional security.) As pleaded, the complaint fails

to allege a constitutional deprivation related to the December 15, 2015 religious

program. 

Fourth, Dates alleges generally that he has suffered race-based discrimination

while incarcerated. The problem is that the complaint does not identify the individual(s)

who engaged in such discrimination or provide a factual basis for the allegation. This is

problematic because to proceed on such a claim, the complaint must plausibly allege

that the defendants “acted or failed to act with a nefarious discriminatory purpose, and

discriminated against [the plaintiff] because of [his] membership in a definable class[.]”

McPhaul v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Madison County, 226 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal

citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do

not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the

4
complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 556 (2007)); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide

the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (internal brackets

omitted). Thus, Dates’ complaint does not state a claim based on discrimination. 

Finally, the complaint purports to bring suit against several unnamed

correctional officers. As a practical matter, a case cannot proceed against unnamed

defendants. See Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is pointless to

include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does

not open the door to relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the

plaintiff.”) (internal citations omitted). In addition, the complaint fails to allege any

claims against these unnamed defendants. As a result, the unnamed officers must be

dismissed.

For these reasons, the complaint does not state a claim against any defendant.

However, because critical facts are omitted, it’s not possible for me to say definitively

that Davis cannot make out a plausible claim. Therefore, I will allow him to file an

amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). In his

amended complaint, Dates should address any deficiencies raised in this order that can

be fixed, and he should explain in his own words what happened, when it happened,

where it happened, and who was involved. He may attach any supporting

5
documentation he has in his possession or can obtain related to his claims.

 Accordingly:

(1) the clerk is DIRECTED to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983

prisoner complaint form and send it to Dates;

(2) Dates is GRANTED leave until May 4, 2016, to file an amended complaint; and

(3) Dates is CAUTIONED that if he does not file an amended complaint by the

deadline, this case may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 6, 2016.

s/ Philip P. Simon 

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6