United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL,
DISCUSSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt. , is granted. The
assessment of an initial partial filing fee is not feasible
at this time.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
plaintiff's motion for assistance with recruiting
counsel, dkt. , is denied as premature.
the defendants have not been identified and served.
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.
Screening of the Complaint
the plaintiff 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); see
also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). 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).
plaintiff alleges generally that the defendants have
interfered with his necessary medications. He asserts that
the defendants have failed to bring his medications when he
has been transported between facilities for court hearings
and have otherwise denied his medications. He asserts that
the policy of defendants IDOC, GEO, and Wexford was the
moving force behind the denial of his medication. He seeks
damages and injunctive relief.
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint, the complaint must be dismissed.
any claim against the Indiana Department of Correction must
be dismissed. The Eleventh Amendment bars
private lawsuits in federal court against a state that has
not consented. Joseph v. Board of Regents of University
of Wisconsin System, 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005).
An agency of the state enjoys that same immunity.
Nuñez v. Indiana Dep't of Child Services,
817 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. ...