govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-2_26-cv-00250-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION 
 
DAVID MELVIN, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00250-JPH-MJD 
 ) 
SAMUEL BYRD, et al., ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING 
OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 
 
Plaintiff David Melvin is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash 
Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this civil action alleging 
violations of state law related to his medical care at the facility. 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 
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
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. Melvin's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading 
stage. See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). Mr. Melvin 
names three defendants: Samuel Byrd, Barbara Riggs, and Taylor Hill. Mr. 
Melvin states he is suing under state law. Dkt. 1 at 4. The relief requested is to 
be seen by an outside doctor and for him to receive proper care at the facility. Id. 
On June 28, 2025, Mr. Melvin broke his ankle. He went to the medical 
unit and Nurse Hicks scheduled him for an x-ray, but he was not seen. Nurse 
Desiree put in a second request for an x-ray that was scheduled to occur on July 
7, 2025. Mr. Melvin says he received the "run around" about the x-ray which 
caused him prolonged pain. Mr. Melvin eventually received an x-ray. He 
requested the results and was referred to the provider but was not seen. His 
ankle healed incorrectly and causes him pain. 
III. Dismissal of Complaint 
Applying the screening standard to the facts alleged in the complaint, the 
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may 
be granted. PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
While Mr. Melvin mentions a count for "cruel and unusual punishment," 
he only alleges that he is suing under state law claims. Dkt. 1 at 4. This Court 
does not have jurisdiction over only state law claims. "Congress has conferred 
subject matter jurisdiction on the district courts only in cases that raise a federal 
question and cases in which there is diversity of citizenship among the parties." 
Smart v. Loc. 702 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009) 
(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32). Because the parties are not citizens of different 
states, see § 1332(a)(1), diversity jurisdiction does not apply. And the stated 
plausible claims—negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress—aren't 
based on federal law. See Huber v. Anderson, 909 F.3d 201, 208 (7th Cir. 2018) 
(Negligence is not a sufficient basis on which to support a constitutional claim). 
The complaint does not include any allegations that Mr. Melvin was 
harmed by a constitutional violation, or who was responsible for his alleged delay 
in medical treatment. See Colbert v. City of Chi. , 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 
2017) ("Individual liability under § 1983… requires personal involvement in the 
alleged constitutional deprivation." (cleaned up)); see also Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 
699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983) ("Section 1983 creates a cause of action based 
on personal liability and predicated upon fault. An individual cannot be held 
liable in a § 1983 action unless he caused or participated in an alleged 
constitutional deprivation.... A causal connection, or an affirmative link, between 
the misconduct complained of and the official sued is necessary.")). 
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief 
against any particular defendant, the complaint is subject to dismissal. PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
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 that invokes this Court's jurisdiction, 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 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 June 18, 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 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
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-
00250-JPH-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. 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
DAVID MELVIN 
244999 
WABASH VALLEY - CF 
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41 
CARLISLE, IN 47838 
 
Date: 5/27/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight