Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bayon v. Indianapolis Metro Police Department Officers

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 13, 2018

ALHADJI F. BAYON, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         I. Screening Complaint

         A. Screening Standard

         Plaintiff 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).

         B. The Complaint

         Mr. 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.

         Mr. Bayon seeks monetary damages, compensation for his medical bills and legal fees, and his criminal charges to be dropped.

         C. Discussion of Claims

         Mr. Bayon's Fourth Amendment claims against IMPD officers # 160815, 110893, and 160847 shall proceed.

         Mr. 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).

         If the 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 those claims.

         D. Duty to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.