UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CURT ENDRES,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO.: 3:25-CV-140-TLS-APR

SHARROL,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Curt Endres, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a vague Complaint. ECF No. 1. “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,

(2007) (cleaned up). Nevertheless, under 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. The entire facts section of Endres’s Complaint states, “I was not given my schizophrenic medication the first 2-3 weeks I was in jail causing a situation where I was jumped and my foot was fractured.” ECF No. 1 at 2. These allegations are too vague to determine what happened and who may be legally responsible for it. It is unclear whether Endres had been prescribed the medication by a physician, when it was prescribed, whether he was seen and evaluated by medical staff once he arrived at the jail, who was supposed to give him his medication there, whether he had advised anyone he was not receiving it, what the “situation” was that caused him harm, and why the Defendant would be responsible for that harm. This Complaint is short on facts, dates, and specifics. Based on what Endres alleges, it is not plausible to infer that the named Defendant, Nurse Sharrol, violated his constitutional rights and is financially liable to him. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(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,

(2009) (citing Twombly,

). “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,

(cleaned up). “[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,

(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.,

(7th Cir. 2010). This Complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Endres believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he 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,

(7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title “Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form. For these reasons, the Court: (1) GRANTS Curt Endres until March 19, 2025, to file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Curt Endres if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. SO ORDERED on February 18, 2025. s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT