United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ALHADJI F. BAYON, Plaintiff,
INDIANAPOLIS METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS (Confidential #) #160815, #110893, and #160847, Defendants.
ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DIRECTING SERVICE OF
PROCESS, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR COURT TO ISSUE
SERVICE AND MOTION FOR COURT ASSIST
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Alhadji F. Bayon is a pretrial detainee currently
incarcerated at Marion County Jail. Because 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. 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 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).
Bayon alleges that on the morning of December 24, 2017, while
unarmed, he was shot at six times and hit by three bullets in
his back, right thigh, and right arm by three Indianapolis
Metro Police Department (IMPD) Officers # 160815, 110893, and
160847. He states that this incident occurred at 2167
Ransdell Street after a high speed chase that ended when Mr.
Bayon hit a tree. He asserts that he was told to exit the
vehicle and show identification, but when he reached for his
wallet, he was shot at instead.
Bayon seeks monetary damages, compensation for his medical
bills and legal fees, and his criminal charges to be dropped.
Discussion of Claims
Bayon's Fourth Amendment claims against IMPD officers #
160815, 110893, and 160847 shall proceed.
Bayon's request for injunctive relief in the form of his
criminal charges being dropped is not cognizable and is
therefore dismissed. The federal courts are
directed not to interfere in ongoing criminal prosecutions
without a showing of irreparable injury. See Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).
plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the
complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have
through July 12, 2018, in which to identify
Duty to ...