United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
MONTANA L. DRAPER, Plaintiff,
IPPEL, ROBBERSON, GABRERRA, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Montana Draper's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
for screening of his complaint.
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
Personal Involvement and Fair Notice Requirements
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 §
1983 action unless he caused or participated in an ...