OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge.

Daniel Shoffner, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was mistreated while at the LaPorte County Jail. Shoffner names four defendants and he raises two distinct claims. First, he argues that the medical ward at the jail should not be on lock-down. Second, he argues that he was denied medical treatment.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Courts apply the same standard under Section 1915A as when deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). "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." Id. at 602. 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). The court must bear in mind, however, that "[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).

Shoffner states that these events occurred while he was a pre-trial detainee. Pre-trial detainees may not be punished without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). They are entitled to the procedural protections of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), before imposition of punishment. Nevertheless, not every act against an inmate constitutes punishment, and a hearing is not necessary when a lock-down is implemented for legitimate security reasons. See Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 291 n.5 (7th Cir. 1995). Here, Shoffner alleges the entire cell block was locked down when another inmate smuggled drugs into the jail.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1986) (citations, ellipsis, and quotation marks omitted). Here, it is clear that the lock-down was not intended to punish Shoffner. Therefore he was not entitled to due process and he does not state a claim based on the lock-down of the cell block.

Shoffner also alleges that he was denied medical treatment at the jail. The complaint names four defendants: three non-medical staff and a nurse. "If a prisoner is under the care of medical experts a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands." Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 2005) (ellipsis omitted) quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3rd Cir. 2004). Here, Shoffner has not plausibly alleged that the non-medical staff had any reason to second guess his medical care. Therefore the three non-medical jail staff will be dismissed.

Shoffner alleges that Sandra Harris charged him1 for medications that he did not receive, denied him a mattress, denied him adequate exercise for his medical condition, and denied him medications that he had been prescribed. "For a medical professional to be liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs, [s]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) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Medical malpractice and incompetence do not state a claim of deliberate indifference. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000). Neither does a mere "disagreement with medical professionals . . . state a cognizable Eighth Amendment Claim under the deliberate indifference standard of Estelle v. Gamble [429 U.S. 97 (1976)]." Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, giving Shoffner the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, he has stated a claim against Sandra Harris for denying him a mattress, denying him adequate exercise for his medical condition, and denying him medications that he had been prescribed.

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Daniel Shoffner leave to proceed against Sandra Harris in her individual capacity for monetary and punitive damages for denying him a mattress, denying him adequate exercise for his medical condition, and denying him medications that he had been prescribed in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(2) DISMISSES all other claims;

(3) DISMISSES Michael Mollenhauer, Scott Bell, and Stephen Vance;

(4) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285's for Sandra Harris to the United States Marshals Service along with a copy of this order and a copy of the amended complaint (ECF 5);

(5) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to effect service of process on Sandra Harris; and

(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Sandra Harris respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. IND. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.2

SO ORDERED.