United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
MICHAEL D. MASON, Plaintiff,
CORIZON INC., Defendant.
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS,
DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Michael D. Mason, an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Court makes the following rulings:
In Forma Pauperis Status
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt.
, is granted. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial
filing fee of fifty-one dollars and ninety-three cents
($51.93), which plaintiff is directed to pay to the clerk no
later than May 15, 2017. Notwithstanding this ruling,
plaintiff is liable for the entire $350 filing fee.
“All [28 U.S.C.] § 1915 has ever done is excuse
pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains
liable for them, and for other costs, although poverty may
make collection impossible.” Abdul-Wadood v.
Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
motion to appoint counsel, dkt. , is denied as premature.
The filing fee has not yet been paid, and defendants have not
been served nor have they appeared. The Seventh Circuit has
found that “until the defendants respond to the
complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel
. . . cannot be gauged.” Kadamovas v. Stevens,
706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013).
courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
screen complaints before service on defendants, and must
dismiss complaints that are frivolous or malicious, fail to
state a claim for relief, or seek monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Dismissal under the
in forma pauperis statute is an exercise of the
Court's discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 34 (1992). 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 under
federal pleading standards,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to 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). 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 [him]
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.2010)
(emphasis in original).
complaint presents two claims, which will be addressed in
first claim alleges that on November 2, 2016, he passed out
“and almost died” and that Nurse Riggs arrived to
help him in a tardy manner, unprepared, and failed to call
for transportation to an outside hospital, all of which
“placed [his] life at risk.” Complaint, dkt. 2,
p. 2. Plaintiff does not, however, allege an injury.
Booker-El v. Superintendent, 668 F.3d 896, 899 (7th
Cir. 2012) (holding that to have Article III standing, a
plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) an injury-in-fact; (2)
fairly traceable to the defendant's action; and (3)
capable of being redressed by a ...