BROWN v. SUPERINTENDENT et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL J. BROWN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:26-cv-01269-JPH-CSW
)
SUPERINTENDENT of RDC, 	)
PILAN Officer, 	)
SERGEANT BREWER Sgt, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS,
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SIGN COMPLAINT
This action was transferred to this Court from the Northern District of
Indiana. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff Michael J. Brown is a prisoner currently incarcerated
at Westville Correctional Facility. He filed this civil action alleging the denial of
medical treatment. 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-01269-JPH-CSW Document 16 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4 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
Mr. Brown's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading
stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). The complaint
names three defendants: Superintendent of RDC, Sgt. Brewer, and Officer Pilan.
Mr. Brown seeks compensatory damages. Dkt. 1.
While housed at the Reception Diagnostic Center on September 3, 2024,
Mr. Brown, 59, was assaulted and injured by a twenty-something year old
"mental health" offender. Mr. Brown yelled for help and Officer Pilan came and
ordered the other offender to stop assaulting Brown. Brown complained of
injuries to his head, neck, and mouth, but Officer Pilan failed to provide or obtain
any medical treatment.
Sgt. Brewer, the floor duty supervisor, arrived on scene and inquired about
the incident but did no further investigation and did not ask whether Brown
needed any medical attention.
Two days later, Mr. Brown was transferred to Westville. At Westville, he
received treatment by a dentist to prevent losing several teeth because of the
assault. Mr. Brown continues to experience severe headaches from his injuries.
Case 1:26-cv-01269-JPH-CSW Document 16 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. Discussion of Claims
Liberally 	construing 	the 	complaint, 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claims 	of
deliberate 	indifference 	to 	a 	serious 	medical 	need 	shall 	proceed 	against
defendants Officer Pilan and Sgt. Brewer.
However, because Mr. Brown has not made any allegations against the
Superintendent of RDC, all claims against the Superintendent are dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
This summary of claims includes all the viable claims identified by the
Court. Any other claims are dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional
claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall
have through November 6, 2026, in which to file a motion to reconsider the
screening order.
IV. Conclusion and Service of Process
The following claims are proceeding in this action: Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claims against Officer Pilan and Sgt Brewer. All other
claims have been dismissed.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process
to defendants Officer Pilan and Sgt. Brewer in the manner specified by Rule 4(d).
Process shall consist of the complaint filed on June 11, 2026, dkt. [1], applicable
forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and
Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order.
The clerk is directed to serve the Indiana Department of Correction
employees electronically.
Case 1:26-cv-01269-JPH-CSW Document 16 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The clerk is directed to terminate Superintendent of RDC as a defendant
on the docket.
"Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by … a
party personally if the party is unrepresented. 	… The court must strike an
unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to
the attorney's or party's attention" Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The complaint filed on June
11, 2026, is not signed. Mr. Brown shall have through November 6, 2026, in
which to sign his complaint. The clerk is directed to send a copy of the
unsigned complaint to Mr. Brown for him to sign and refile.
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
MICHAEL J. BROWN
105341
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Officer Pilan
Sgt. Brewer
(Both at the Reception Diagnostic Center)
Date: 10/9/2026
Case 1:26-cv-01269-JPH-CSW Document 16 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>