govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-2_26-cv-00228-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION 
 
DA’NATE LOWE, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00228-JRO-MJD 
 ) 
MIDDAUGH, et al., ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
 
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 
DIRECTING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 
 
Plaintiff Da’nate Lowe, who is currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley 
Correctional Facility, alleges in this case that his rights were violated during a 
medical procedure at that prison. 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 PageID #:
<pageID>
 
(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 
Lowe sues Dr. Middaugh and Centurion. His factual allegations, 
summarized here, are accepted as true at the pleading stage. See Lisby v. 
Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). 
When Lowe had a dental procedure, dentist Dr. Middaugh gave him a shot 
to numb the right side of his mouth even though the dental procedure was going 
to take place on the left side. When Dr. Middaugh was finished, Lowe asked him 
why he did the numbing shot on the wrong side. After Lowe explained that he 
experienced excruciating pain, Dr. Middaugh told him that he made a mistake, 
that he was sorry, and that he would not be billed for the visit. 
III. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT 
Although a plaintiff need not plead legal theories in a complaint, see Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 8(a), Lowe alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated. 
Where a pro se litigant has expressly stated the legal theory he wishes to pursue, 
the district court is not required to analyze whether the allegations in the 
complaint might state a claim under a different legal theory. See Larry v. 
Goldsmith, 799 F. App’x 413, 416 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Clancy v. Office of Foreign PageID #:
<pageID>
 
Assets Control of U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 559 F.3d 595, 606- 07 (7th Cir. 2009)). 
Thus, the Court analyzes Lowe’s claims as an Eighth Amendment claim. 
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, 
Lowe’s complaint must be dismissed. 
First, private corporations acting under color of state law—including those 
that contract with the state to provide essential services to prisoners—are treated 
as municipalities for purposes of Section 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 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). Lowe makes no allegations that the incident at issue resulted from a 
policy, practice, or custom by Centurion and therefore has failed to state a claim 
against this defendant. 
Second, for an inmate to state an Eighth Amendment claim for medical 
mistreatment or the denial of medical care, Lowe must allege that Dr. Middaugh 
displayed “deliberate indifference towards an objectively serious medical need.” 
Thomas v. Blackard , 2 F.4th 716, 721 –22 (7th Cir. 2021). This requires 
allegations of “‘(1) an objectively serious medical condition to which (2) a state 
official was deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent.’” Johnson v. Dominguez, PageID #:
<pageID>
 
5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 
839 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2016)). Lowe’s allegations of pain during his dental 
procedure are enough to allow a conclusion that he experienced an objectively 
serious medical condition. But he alleges that Dr. Middaugh made a mistake in 
numbing the wrong side of his mouth. This is not enough to raise an inference 
that Dr. Middaugh was subjectively aware of Lowe’s pain during the procedure 
and was deliberately indifferent to it. Lowe therefore has not stated an Eighth 
Amendment deliberate indifference claim. See Huber v. Anderson, 909 F.3d 201, 
208 (7th Cir. 2018) (deliberate indifference “requires more than negligence or 
even gross negligence; a plaintiff must show that the defendant was essentially 
criminally reckless, that is, ignored a known risk.”) (internal quotation omitted). 
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief 
against any particular defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal. 
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 PageID #:
<pageID>
 
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 July 15, 2026, to file an amended 
complaint. 
The amended complaint must (a) contain a short and plain statement of 
the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, which is sufficient to 
provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (b) include a 
demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have 
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. 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 
complaint. See Local Rule 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 
Any amended complaint should have the proper case number, 2:26-cv-
228-JRO-MJD 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. PageID #:
<pageID>
 
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: June 17, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
DA’NATE LOWE 
284509 
WABASH VALLEY - CF 
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight