United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
Dkt. No. 2, is granted to the extent that
the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of
$10.14. The plaintiff shall have through July 14,
2018, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the
the foregoing ruling, the plaintiff still owes the entire
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.
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).
state a claim, the plaintiff is required to provide a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
[he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It
is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts,
and his statement need only “give the defendant fair
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)); see Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d
879, 881 (7th Cir. 2004). However, a complaint that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state
a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Id. “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.”
Id. The complaint allegations “must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;
Christopher, 384 F.3d at 881.
Court is obliged to give the plaintiff's pro se
allegations, “however inartfully pleaded, ” a
liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
plaintiff alleges that at 10:45 p.m. on the night of March
28th, another inmate flooded his range in the segregated
housing unit. Prison officials turned the water off to
resolve the issue. According to the plaintiff, officers are
supposed to provide water every four hours to allow inmates
to drink and flush the toilet and did not do so. This
happened again on April 10th at 5:30 p.m. This time the water
was shut off for at least seven hours.
upon the above screening standard, the complaint must be
dismissed. To state a claim for relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he
was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States; and (2) the deprivation was visited
upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state
law. Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d
824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The plaintiff's claims based on
the conditions of his confinement arise under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. In order to
violate the Constitution, deprivations must be
“unquestioned and serious” and contrary to
“the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.” See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981). Mere discomfort and inconvenience do not
implicate the Constitution. See Caldwell v. Miller,
790 F.2d 589, 600-01 (7th Cir.1986). It is well-settled that
conditions which are temporary and do not result in physical
harm are not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Jihad
v. Wright, 124 F.3d 204 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing
Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.3d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir.
1988); Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 138-39 (7th
the plaintiff has not alleged sufficient conditions to state
a claim that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated.
He states that he was not provided water as required by
prison policy for brief periods. To conclude that his Eighth
Amendment rights were violated, the Court would have to
speculate regarding how long he went without water and
whether he suffered any actual physical injury as a result.
Twombly, 550 U.S. ...