United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ANGELITO C. MERCADO, Plaintiff,
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MATT MYERS, OFFICER LEITMAN, SGT. REED, Defendants.
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court
matter is before the Court for screening of Plaintiff
Angelito C. Mercado's Amended Complaint [dkt. 11]. As an
initial matter, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, [dkt. 14], is granted. He is assessed an
initial partial filing fee of Six Dollars and Seventy-Six
Cents ($6.76). Plaintiff shall have through May 18, 2017, to
pay this sum to the clerk.
courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints filed by plaintiffs
proceeding in forma pauperis before service on the
defendants, and 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).
survive dismissal under this rule,
[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). Pro
se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff 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).
brings this action against Defendants Officer Lehman and
Sergeant Reed. Plaintiff alleges that on October 31, 2015, he
came into the Bartholomew County Jail in Columbus, Indiana,
and alerted Officer Lehman that he had accidentally ingested
drugs and needed immediate medical assistance. Officer Lehman
replied that there was not a nurse on duty and the Jail did
not have anything to help him vomit up the drugs. Minutes
later, Plaintiff asked to use the telephone to call a parent
to bond him out and take him to the hospital. Officer Lehman
and Sergeant Reed placed Plaintiff in a wheelchair and
wheeled him to the phone. Unfortunately, Plaintiff passed out
as he was dialing the phone and fell to the floor. As Officer
Lehman and Sergeant Reed picked him up by his hands and feet,
Plaintiff started kicking and screaming. The Defendants'
“threw” Plaintiff into a jail cell. Officer
Lehman and Sergeant Reed then allegedly ignored the
plaintiff's repeated requested for water as he overdosed.
Plaintiff drank toilet water in an attempt to vomit. He
repeated this several times while yelling for help.
Eventually, he passed out again. Officer Lehman and Sergeant
Reed entered the cell and began undressing Plaintiff. When he
awoke, Plaintiff began fighting Officer Lehman and Sergeant
Reed. Sergeant Reed pressed his thumb in Plaintiff's
neck. Plaintiff continued struggling with Officer Lehman and
Sergeant Reed. Finally, the officers left Plaintiff's
alleges that he sustained a throat injury and had to be
life-lined to Indianapolis for medical treatment. He alleges
an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical condition. Based on these facts, Plaintiffs
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference may
also alleges Officer Lehman and Sergeant Reed used excessive
force on him. This exact claim is already proceeding in
1:17-cv-324-JMS-MJD, and is therefore dismissed as
duplicative. see Rizzo v. City of Wheaton, Ill., 462
Fed.Appx. 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2011); Trippe Mfg. Co. v.
Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir.
the foregoing, the following claims shall proceed:
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against