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.

Draper v. Ippel

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

July 27, 2018

MONTANA L. DRAPER, Plaintiff,
v.
IPPEL, ROBBERSON, GABRERRA, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Montana Draper's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for screening of his complaint.

         I. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Mr. Draper's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 3, is granted to the extent that he is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Twelve Dollars and Sixty Cents ($12.60). He shall have through August 24, 2018, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.

         Notwithstanding 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-Wadoodv. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996). However, only the initial partial filing fee is due by the deadline set forth above.

         II. Screening

         Because Mr. Draper is an inmate confined at the New Castle Correctional Facility (NCCF), 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 a 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 a 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.

Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as Mr. Draper's 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).

         A. The Complaint

         Mr. Draper's complaint alleges that, on May 18, 2018, he punched a glass window at NCCF and broke his hand. It further alleges that he did not receive prompt or proper medical attention thereafter. As a result, he continues to experience pain (as he has not received any medication), and he believes his hand is not healing properly.

         The complaint identifies three doctors-Dr. Ippel, Dr. Robberson, and Dr. Gabrerra-as defendants. Although the complaint describes various actions by doctors, it does not attribute any action to any doctor in particular. Instead, it makes more general statements like, "the Doctor came to the Mental Health unit to see my hand," and "The Doctor said he did not think it was broke." Dkt. No. 1 at 2.

         B. Personal Involvement and Fair Notice Requirements

         The complaint asserts that Mr. Draper is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. "Individual liability under § 1983... requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City of Chicago,851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted) (citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist,699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983) ("Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault. An individual cannot be held liable in a ยง 1983 action unless he caused or participated in an ...


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.