UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JORDAN LEE SKALLAND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) No. 1:15 CV 307

)

JASON HUFFNAGLE, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jordan Lee Skalland, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that his Eighth

Amendment rights were violated while he was housed in the Steuben County Jail on

two occasions. “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 and dismiss it if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a

claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must 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).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint to contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, it must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A

claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “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).”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[W]here the

well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of

misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is

entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). 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).

Here, Skalland alleges that when he was transferred from the Elkhart County Jail

to the Steuben County Jail at mid-morning on June 2, 2015, he filled out a form listing

his medications as Lexapro at bedtime and Buspar twice a day. It is unclear who saw

that form, but he did not receive any medication that day. The next day he filled out

another form with the same information. At lunch he spoke to an unknown nurse who

told him that she was unable to reach the pharmacy, the Elkhart County Jail, or his

doctor to verify his prescriptions. Later that day, he was transferred back to the Elkhart

County Jail without having received any medication. Skalland is not specific, but

2
because the Buspar was to be taken twice a day, it appears that he missed the evening

dose on June 2, and the morning dose on June 3. Because the Lexapro was to be taken at

bedtime, it appears that he missed one dose of it on June 2. 

“For a medical professional to be liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s

medical needs, he must make a decision that represents such a substantial departure

from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the

person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v.

Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Based

on this complaint, it does not appear that the defendant nurse was involved in his

medical care until he spoke to her at lunch on the second day – after he had already

missed his medication and shortly before he left the Steuben County Jail. As such, this

complaint does not plausibly allege that she was the proximate cause of his having

missed his medication on either of those days. “Only persons who cause or participate

in the violations are responsible.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). See

also Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 624 (7th Cir. 2010) (Liability attaches only where the

defendant’s action or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.).

Moreover, to the extent that the complaint alleges that she tried and was unable to

verify that he had been prescribed these medications, it was not deliberately indifferent

for her to have declined to give them to him. Therefore these allegations do not state a

claim against the nurse.

Skalland alleges that he was again transferred to the Steuben County Jail on

September 23, 2015. That evening, he was placed in a cell without a mat. He does not

3
say who placed him in this cell and made him sleep directly on the concrete floor.

Instead, he explains that he spoke to Captain Huffnagle about the situation the next

day. Because he was transferred back to the Elkhart County Jail later that day, this

complaint does not plausibly allege that Captain Huffnagle denied him a mat to sleep

on. “[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). Moreover, even if Captain

Huffnagle were responsible for making him sleep directly on the floor, being denied a

mattress for only one night is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation.

Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore these allegations do

not state a claim against Captain Huffnagle. 

Skalland also alleges that he asked Captain Huffnagle about his medication. In

response, he was given a medical request slip and told that “We’ll look into it.” That

afternoon the nurse came to see him. In medical cases, the United States Constitution is

violated only when a defendant was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious

medical needs. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). “[C]onduct is

deliberately indifferent when the official has acted in an intentional or criminally

reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at serious

risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from

occurring even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469,

478 (7th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Here the complaint

has not provided any facts from which it could be plausibly inferred that Skalland was

at serious risk of harm when he spoke to Captain Huffnagle. Moreover, there is no

4
indication that Captain Huffnagle was deliberately indifferent. He gave Skalland the

necessary form and the nurse saw Skalland later that same day. Therefore these

allegations do not state a claim against Captain Huffnagle. 

Neither do they state a claim against the nurse. It appears that Skalland missed

the evening dose of Buspar and Lexapro on September 23 as well as the morning dose

of Buspar on September 24. Nevertheless, this complaint does not provide facts from

which it can be plausibly inferred that any act or omission by the nurse caused this to

happen. As before, she does not appear to be involved until after he missed his

medication and only hours before he was transferred back to the Elkhart County Jail.

Therefore these allegations do not state a claim against the nurse. 

Though this complaint does not state a claim, because it is possible that Skalland

has omitted relevant facts, he will be permitted to file an amended complaint if he has

additional factual information to provide. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th

Cir. 2013). In his amended complaint, if he files one, Skalland needs to set forth every

claim he is trying to bring in this case. He needs to provide all the relevant facts. He

needs to explain what injuries he sustained. Finally, he would need to provide a USM285 form for each defendant. Alternatively, if he has no additional claims or relevant

facts to submit for consideration, he need not respond to this order, but the complaint

will then be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

For these reasons, 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 Jordan Lee Skalland; 

5
(2) GRANTS Jordan Lee Skalland until March 30, 2016, to file an amended

complaint; and

(3) CAUTIONS Jordan Lee Skalland that if he does not respond by that deadline,

this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because

the current complaint does not state a claim.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 22, 2016

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

6