MAYFIELD v. GEO GROUP INC. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ANTHONY STILES MAYFIELD, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG
)
GEO GROUP INC., 	)
STORMS Lt., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
New Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF) inmate Anthony Mayfield seeks
$60,000 in damages for violations of his civil rights. Because he is a prisoner,
the Court must screen his complaint. 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
(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
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 complaint names two defendants: the GEO Group, which operates
NCCF 	under 	a 	contract 	with 	the 	Indiana 	Department 	of 	Correction, 	and
Lieutenant Storms. The complaint itself contains no factual allegations but refers
to an unspecified attachment. Dkt. 1 at 2.
Mayfield attached three pieces of paper to his complaint. One is a prisoner
grievance form stamped "received" on April 1, 2026. Dkt. 1-1 at 1. It describes
confinement in restricted housing without property, including hygiene materials,
for an extended period. Id. The second and third sheets of paper are a longer
narrative description of Mayfield's confinement in restrictive housing. Id. at 2–3.
It references events occurring April 2 and, therefore, appears to have been
drafted after Mayfield submitted his grievance. However, it does not refer to
Lieutenant Storms by name. It is not clear whether this is the attachment
referenced in the complaint form.
Mayfield also filed an affidavit with a copy of the same narrative attached
to his complaint. Dkt. 6. Again, it is not clear if this is the attachment referenced
in the complaint form.
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Mayfield's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted for the following reasons.
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
First, a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It also must
describe the plaintiff's claims "in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice
of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bravo v. Midland
Credit Mgmt., 812 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 2016). Mayfield's complaint does not
include a plain statement of his claim or offer fair notice of whom he wishes to
sue for what reason. To the contrary, he refers to an unspecified attachment and
leaves the Court and the defendants to guess.
Second, liability for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "is
direct rather than vicarious; supervisors are responsible for their own acts but
not for those of subordinates, or for failing to ensure that subordinates carry out
their tasks correctly." Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2018).
"[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657
(7th 	Cir. 	2017) 	(internal 	quotation 	omitted). 	Mayfield 	does 	not 	state 	what
Lieutenant 	Storms 	did 	or 	did 	not 	do 	and 	how 	his 	conduct 	violated 	the
Constitution. 	He 	has 	not 	supported 	a 	reasonable 	inference 	of 	personal
involvement sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.
Third, private corporations like GEO that act under color of state law to
provide essential services to prisoners are treated as municipalities for purposes
of § 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
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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).
"Liability under this standard is difficult to establish, requiring a § 1983
plaintiff to prove that a municipality, either through an express policy or an
implied policy of inaction, took deliberate action that was the moving force
behind a constitutional injury." Taylor v. Hughes, 26 F. 4th 419, 435 (7th Cir.
2022) (cleaned up). Liability may attach in two circumstances: First, "if an
express 	municipal 	policy 	or 	affirmative 	municipal 	action 	is 	itself
unconstitutional, . . . a plaintiff has a straightforward path to holding the
municipality accountable . . . [and] a single instance of a constitutional violation
caused by the policy suffices to establish municipal liability." Id. (cleaned up).
Second, a plaintiff may show "gaps in express policies or . . . widespread practices
that are not tethered to a particular written policy—situations in which a
municipality has knowingly acquiesced in an unconstitutional result of what its
express policies have left unsaid." Id. (cleaned up). Under this theory, a plaintiff
"must typically point to evidence of a prior pattern of similar constitutional
violations" to "ensure that there is a true municipal policy at issue, not a random
event." Id. (cleaned up).
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Mayfield asserts no allegations against GEO and describes no GEO policy
or practice in his complaint form or his attachments. Accordingly, he fails to
state a claim for relief under Monell.
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
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 16, 2026, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
complaint. See Local Rule 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). If the plaintiff chooses to
attach pages to the amended complaint form, he must clearly label them as part
of the amended complaint.
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 1:26-cv-
00963-JRO-MG, 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
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.
Date: 10/15/2026
Distribution:
ANTHONY STILES MAYFIELD
298267
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Case 1:26-cv-00963-JRO-MG Document 15 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>