United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division
FILING FEE, DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
Plaintiff William Montgomery filed this case without paying the $400.00 filing fee or demonstrating his financial inability to do so. He shall have through August 20, 2015, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that he lack the financial ability to do so.
Copy & Supplies Request
The plaintiff's request for a copy of his complaint is granted. The clerk is directed to send the plaintiff a copy of docket 1 with his copy of this Entry. The plaintiff's requested to send a copy of the complaint to other individuals is denied.
The plaintiff's motion for the Court to Order the Clark County Jail to provide supplies (Dkt. 3) is denied. The plaintiff requests that the Clark County jail provide a variety of office supplies and other things to aid him in litigating this case. The plaintiff does not have an unlimited right to office supplies of his choosing. Rather, he has a constitutional right of reasonable access to the courts, and that right protects an inmate's ability to pursue nonfrivolous legal claims. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). Indigent inmates must be provided paper, pen, and postage to draft and mail legal documents, but it is apparent from the plaintiff's filing that he does, in fact, have paper, pen, and postage. The plaintiff has not alleged that he has been prevented from bringing any nonfrivolous legal claim, and therefore, it is not appropriate for the Court to order the jail to provide the inmate's list of specific requests.
Mr. Montgomery is a prisoner currently confined in Clark County Jail. Because Mr. Montgomery is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining 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 Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 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). Pro se complaints such as that filed by Mr. Montgomery are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Montgomery alleges that on June 27, 2015, at 11:00 p.m., prisoners in cells above his flushed mattress stuffing down the toilet such that toilet water, including feces and urine, flooded into his cell and another cell. That night, Mr. Montgomery asked defendants Officer Noel and Lieutenant Keating to provide him a mop or get his cell cleaned, and they responded that they would not clean the cell or get him a mop. Feces and urine sat on the floor of both cells for approximately nine hours. At 8:30 a.m. the next ...