UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JASON L. LANE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:20-cv-00650-JPH-DLP ) ROHANA, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings Plaintiff Jason Lane, an Indiana inmate, brings this action pursuant to

alleging that his civil rights have been violated. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. I. Screening Standard Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining 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 Cesal v. Moats,

(7th Cir. 2017). To survive dismissal, [the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 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,

(2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cesal,

(citing Perez v. Fenoglio,

(7th Cir. 2015)). II. Discussion

Mr. Lane sues Doctor Rohana and Marion County Sheriff Kerry Forestal. He alleges that, while he was confined at the Marion County Jail, he was exposed to mold and noxious gas. He became lightheaded and nauseated. He also slipped and injured his foot. Dr. Rohana examined him and gave him only an ace bandage. He did not provide Mr. Lane with crutches, pain relievers, or a lower range pass. Several days later, Mr. Lane was taken to Eskenazi Hospital for an unrelated elbow injury. While at the hospital, Mr. Lane received an x-ray for his foot and learned that it was broken in two places. The next month, Mr. Lane underwent surgery to repair his foot. Based on the screening standard set forth above, Mr. Lane's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim shall proceed against Dr. Rohana.

Any claim against Sheriff Forestal is dismissed. While Mr. Lane asserts that the Sheriff is responsible for the health and welfare of the people incarcerated in the Jail, and that he notified the Sheriff of his serious medical need, mere "knowledge of a subordinate's misconduct is not enough for liability." Vance v. Rumsfeld,

(7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Indeed, "inaction following receipt of a complaint about someone else's conduct is [insufficient]." Estate of Miller by Chassie v. Marberry,

(7th Cir. 2017); see Burks v. Raemisch,

(7th Cir. 2009). This summary of claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the Court. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through March 11, 2021, in which to identify those claims. III. Conclusion and Service of Process The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Dr. Rohana in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. [1], applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Wavierof Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. SO ORDERED. Date: 2/12/2021 S\amnu Patruck lbanlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JASON L. LANE 922942 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only Dr. Rohana Medical Employee Marion County Jail 40 S Alabama Street Indianapolis, IN 46204