Jasper Frazier v. Robert E. Carter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 28, 2024 *
Decided April 2, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2344
JASPER FRAZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT E. CARTER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:22-cv-02466-JRS-MJD
James R. Sweeney II,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jasper Frazier, an Indiana prisoner who has been transferred to New Jersey
under an interstate corrections compact, appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging
constitutional violations at his New Jersey prison. The district judge dismissed Frazier’s
complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2344 Page 2
In 2021, Frazier was transferred from the Indiana Department of Corrections to
the New Jersey Department of Corrections under an interstate corrections compact
between Indiana and New Jersey. The transfer was one of the terms of a settlement
arising from Frazier’s previous lawsuits against Indiana prison officials.
The following year, Frazier sued Indiana prison and state officials, along with
two former lawyers from his Indiana litigation, for constitutional violations while he
was at the New Jersey prison. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted that prison officials in
New Jersey denied him access to a religious advisor and religious materials and limited
his access to courts by confiscating his legal books. He imputed liability to the Indiana
defendants based on a provision in the Indiana Code specifying that inmates confined
in an institution under the interstate compact are “subject to the jurisdiction of the
sending state.” IND. C ODE § 11-8-4-6 (2015).
The district judge screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it
for failure to state a claim. The judge explained that Frazier had not alleged that (1) the
past and present Commissioners of the Indiana Department of Corrections were
personally involved, or aware of, the acts at issue; or (2) that any of the defendants were
responsible for, or aware of, the conditions of confinement or his religious practice in
New Jersey. To the extent Frazier believed that the interstate compact subjected him to
Indiana’s jurisdiction, the judge pointed out that Indiana—as the “sending state”—has
control over his placement, but not the conditions of his confinement in New Jersey.
Frazier moved for leave to amend his complaint. He attached an amended
complaint that restated his essential allegations, as well as a copy of the interstate
compact.
The judge denied the motion and issued a final judgment. The judge explained
that Frazier’s proposed amended complaint did not substantially differ from his
original complaint, nor did it show why the original complaint should not be dismissed.
As for the compact, the judge noted that many of its provisions establish that the
conditions of a prisoner’s confinement are the responsibility of the receiving state—in
this case, New Jersey.
On appeal, Frazier challenges the district judge’s interpretation that the interstate
compact relieves Indiana officials of responsibility for the conditions he experienced in
New Jersey. He argues that the compact requires the defendants to enforce his
constitutional rights while he is imprisoned out of state—an obligation that extends to

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2344 Page 3
his right to access the courts through posted letters, as well as his right to practice his
religion.
Frazier misconstrues the language of the compact. One provision of the compact
explicitly states that “responsibility for offenders custody” rests with the receiving state.
Contract for Services Between Indiana and New Jersey, § 12.1 That provision states that
the receiving state bears responsibility for providing subsistence, all necessary medical
services and supplies, training and treatment programs, and safe custody. And even if
the compact could be read to confer responsibility on Indiana authorities for the actions
of New Jersey prison officials, government officials are held accountable in § 1983 suits
only for their own misconduct. Hess v. Garcia, 72 F.4th 753, 767–68 (7th Cir. 2023).
We have considered Frazier’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED
1 Frazier appears to have realized as much. He has initiated a suit against New
Jersey officials for the same alleged violations. Frazier v. Kuhn et al., 21-16842 (BRM)
(CLW) (D. N.J.).

-- 3 of 3 --