ARCHER v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JACKIE ARCHER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB
)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
)
)
CENTURION HEATH, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING OF
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jackie Archer is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton
Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). He filed this civil action alleging he has been
exposed to the Legionella pathogen at Pendleton. Because the plaintiff is a
"prisoner," 	this 	Court 	must 	screen 	the 	complaint 	before 	service 	on 	the
defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion 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(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(2007). "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, 678 (2009). The
Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
The Court accepts Mr. Archer's factual allegations as true at the pleading
stage but not his legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("we must take all
of the factual allegations in the complaint as true," but "we 'are not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation'") (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). The caption of the complaint lists the Indiana
Department 	of 	Correction 	("IDOC") 	and 	Centurion 	Health 	as 	defendants.
However, in the body of the complaint, Mr. Archer lists the following "additional
plaintiffs:"1 Maggie Bryant, Kevin Osme, William Callahan, Bobby Latour, Jeffrey
Meece, Chris Ertel, Vincent Stanley, Andy Bagienski, Dennis Reagle, the State of
Indiana, the Indiana Department of Health, "and all of their . . . present and
former 	members, 	officers, 	agents, 	employees 	and 	successors, 	known 	and
unknown collectively." Dkt. 1 at 3.
Mr. Archer alleges that "IDOC, Centurion Health" allowed the Legionella
pathogen to grow in the water supply at Pendleton, beginning in March 2021. Id.
1 It is apparent that Mr. Archer meant to say that these parties are additional
defendants, not plaintiffs.
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
at 2. Mr. Archer specifically indicates that he wants to pursue state law claims
"under IC 13-30-4-1" and that there is diversity of citizenship between him and
every defendant.2 Id. at 4. Mr. Archer is seeking to require remedial work on the
Pendleton water supply, better Legionella testing for inmates and of the water
supply, and damages.
III. Dismissal of Complaint
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
First, to the extent Mr. Archer wants to pursue state law claims in federal
court based on diversity of citizenship, a district court cannot exercise diversity
jurisdiction if the plaintiff shares the same state citizenship as any one of the
defendants. Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)); see also
Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 676 (7th Cir. 2006). Mr.
Archer, an IDOC inmate, identifies himself as an Indiana citizen and has not
shown that no defendant is also an Indiana citizen. Since Defendants work in
central Indiana, they are likely all Indiana citizens.
Second, even if the Court were to generously analyze the complaint to
determine whether it stated any claims under federal law, it does not do so.
Because 	of 	that, 	Mr. 	Archer 	may 	not 	rely 	on 	the 	Court's 	supplemental
2 Mr. Archer seems to have crossed out the box on the complaint form that would
indicate he wants to pursue any federal claims.
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
jurisdiction to entertain any state law claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hagans
v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974); In re African-Am. Slave Descendants
Litig., 471 F.3d 754,757-58 (7th Cir. 2006).
To begin with, the State of Indiana and its agencies, such as the IDOC and
Department of Health, are not subject to suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012).
As for Centurion, which is the contracted provider of healthcare services
within the IDOC, private corporations acting under color of state law—including
those that contract with the state to provide essential services to prisoners—are
treated as municipalities for purposes of Section 1983 and can be sued when
their actions violate the Constitution. Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18
F.4th 214, 235 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658
(1978)). To state a Monell claim, the plaintiff must identify an action taken by the
municipality and allege a causal link between the municipality's action and the
deprivation of federal rights. Dean, 18 F.4th at 235. "A municipality 'acts'
through its written policies, widespread practices or customs, and the acts of a
final decisionmaker." Levy v. Marion Co. Sheriff, 940 F.3d 1002, 1010 (7th Cir.
2019). Mr. Archer's complaint fails to identify a policy, practice, or custom of
Centurion's with respect to managing the water supply at Pendleton.
Finally, Mr. Archer collectively lists names of various individuals whom he
seems to believe would have some responsibility for the Legionella contamination
at 	Pendleton. 	"[I]ndividual 	liability 	under 	§ 	1983 	. 	. 	. 	requires 	personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago,
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). "The plaintiff
must demonstrate a causal connection between (1) the sued officials and (2) the
alleged misconduct." Id.
The Seventh Circuit does not necessarily prohibit "group pleading" in
complaints. See Robles v. Chicago, 354 F. Supp. 3d 873, 875 (N.D. Ill. 2019).
However, a "group pleading" that vaguely refers to the defendants collectively to
ambiguously 	attribute 	an 	action 	to 	an 	unknown 	defendant 	or 	group 	of
defendants does not provide adequate notice of a plaintiff's claims as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 580
(7th Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint can provide sufficient detail to put the defendants
on notice if it directs every allegation at all defendants because the defendants
do not have to speculate about which claims or allegations pertain to them, and
they must defend against them all." Sexton v. Bd. of Educ., Dist. 130, Cook Cnty.,
Illinois, 815 F. Supp. 3d 801, 806–07 (N.D. Ill. 2025). Here, however, Mr. Archer's
simple listing of names, without any explanation as to who the persons are and
how or why they might be responsible for maintaining the safety of Pendelton's
water supply, is not enough to state a claim against any of these individuals.
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief
against any particular defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal.
IV. Opportunity to File an Amended Complaint
The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the
dismissal of the action at present. "The usual standard in civil cases is to allow
defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
amendment would not be futile." Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726,
738 (7th Cir. 2018). In the interest of justice, the Court will allow the plaintiff to
amend his complaint if, after reviewing this Court's order, he believes that he
can state a viable claim for relief, consistent with the allegations he has already
made. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015) ("We've
often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) a judge
should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to amend his
complaint."); Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013).
The plaintiff shall have through November 6, 2026, to file an amended
complaint.
The amended complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the
claim" which explains what happened to him, who was responsible for what
happened, what injury he suffered due to the defendant or defendants' actions,
and what relief he wants from this lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The clerk is
directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with
the plaintiff's copy of this Order, which he must use if he files an amended
complaint. See Local Rule 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 1:26-cv-
978-JPH-KMB, and the words "Amended Complaint" on the first page. The
amended complaint will completely replace the original. See Beal v. Beller, 847
F.3d 	897, 	901 	(7th Cir. 	2017) 	("For 	pleading 	purposes, 	once 	an 	amended
complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture."). Therefore, it
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
must set out every defendant, claim, and factual allegation the plaintiff wishes
to pursue in this action.
If the plaintiff files an amended complaint, it will be screened pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If no amended complaint is filed, this action will be
dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
JACKIE ARCHER
882633
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Date: 10/9/2026
Case 1:26-cv-00978-JPH-KMB Document 18 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>