IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JaVON CROCKETT BERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-556

vs. )

)

BRENT MIZE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by JaVon Crockett Berry, a pro se prisoner, on

November 24, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1)

DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner

Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to JaVon Crockett

Berry; (2) GRANTS JaVon Crockett Berry until January 21, 2016, to

file an amended complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS JaVon Crockett Berry

that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current

complaint (DE 2) does not state a claim. 

DISCUSSION

Berry filed a complaint naming eleven defendants. “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. 

In the complaint, Berry describes a series of events starting

on October 6, 2009, at the Pendleton Correctional Facility and

ending on October 3, 2013, at the Indiana State Prison. It is

unclear how these events (which involve different defendants, on

different dates, in different locations, for different claims) are

sufficiently related to be brought in a single lawsuit. “Unrelated

claims against different defendants belong in different suits . .

..” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The

complaint is vague in that it omits many details and dates. Indeed,

the factual description of the claims only contains the names of

four of the defendants. Despite these defects, it is clear that the

last event described in the complaint occurred on October 3, 2013.

However, “Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations . . . is

applicable to all causes of action brought in Indiana under 42

U.S.C. § 1983.” Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force,

239 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Berry did not sign the

complaint for this case until November 23, 2015, all of the claims

arising out of events described in this complaint are barred by the

statute of limitations. 

-2-
Nevertheless, because the complaint omits many dates and does

not describe what seven of the defendants did, it is possible that

Berry may have a claim against one of them which arose within the

past two years. If so, he can file an amended complaint. See

Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he files an

amended complaint, he must follow the instructions on the complaint

form which instruct him to “Write a new paragraph for each

violation. Name each defendant involved in that violation. Number

your paragraphs.” DE 2 at 3. He also needs to explain when each

event occurred and what each defendant did (or did not do) which

makes that defendant liable to him. He needs to provide the facts

on which his claims are based and he needs to describe what

injuries he has suffered as a result of each claim. 

[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. Factual allegations

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level, on the assumption that all the

allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful

in fact). 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation

marks, ellipsis, citations and footnote omitted). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court: (1) DIRECTS the

clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42

U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to JaVon Crockett Berry; (2) GRANTS

-3-
JaVon Crockett Berry until January 21, 2016, to file an amended

complaint; and (3) CAUTIONS JaVon Crockett Berry that if he does

not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint (DE 2) does not

state a claim. 

DATED: December 1, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-4-