Zachary Edgar Hunter v. Petal and Barlow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ZACHARY EDGAR HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:26-CV-505-CCB-SJF PETAL and BARLOW, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Zachary Edgar Hunter, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint suing two medical professionals alleging they did not provide him constitutionally adequate medical treatment for his broken jaw. ECF 2. “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, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 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.

Hunter alleges Dr. Petal and Nurse Barlow worked for Wexford Medical at the Westville Correctional Facility in 2024. However, Wexford has not provided medical services for the Indiana Department of Correction since June 30, 2021. Without regard for who employed them, he alleges Dr. Petal saw him the day after his jaw was broken, ordered an x-ray, gave him an injection for pain, and scheduled him to see an outside him she would make sure he saw the outside specialist for his jaw. He was seen by an outside specialist the next day.

“For a medical professional to be liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, he must make a decision that represents such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). This complaint does not allege facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that either Dr. Petal or Nurse Barlow were deliberately indifferent to Hunter’s need for medical treatment for his broken jaw.

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (cleaned up). 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., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).

This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Hunter 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, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (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.

Hunter must also resolve his filing fee status by either paying the filing fee or seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an official copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement showing every transaction for the last six months.

For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Zachary Edgar Hunter until May 29, 2026, to resolve his filing fee status and file an amended complaint; and (2) CAUTIONS Zachary Edgar Hunter if he does not respond by the deadline, he will be assessed the full filing fee and this case will be dismissed under 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 April 17, 2026 /s/Cristal C. Brisco CRISTAL C. BRISCO, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT