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.

Cislo v. Bandy

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

August 29, 2018

RONNIE B. CISLO, Plaintiff,
v.
DALE BANDY, ERIC RAWLINS, CRAIG CRAIGE, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, Defendants.

          ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         I. In Forma Pauperis

         The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, dkt [3], is granted because the Court finds that the plaintiff does not have the assets or means to pay even an initial partial filing fee. Because the Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates that a prisoner will not be prohibited from bringing a civil action for the reason that he lacks the assets and means to pay an initial partial filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), the plaintiff will be granted a waiver of payment of the initial partial filing fee in this case. He is still obligated, however, to pay the full filing fee pursuant to the statutory formula set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See id. § 1915(b)(1). “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. 1996).

         II. Screening Standard

         The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (Pendleton). 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. 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). 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).

         II. The Complaint

         The complaint alleges that on May 10, 2018, the plaintiff was picked up by defendants Indiana Department of Correction Transportation Officers Dale Bandy and Eric Rawlins from the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, in Dallas, Texas. He was in the psychiatric unit at the Dallas County Jail at the time. The plaintiff has a long history of mental health issues.

         During the trip back to Indiana, the plaintiff suffered a severe mental health episode such that Bandy and Rawlins contacted defendant Warden Craig Craige for guidance. Craige instructed Bandy and Rawlins to call the Arkansas State Police for assistance. The plaintiff was taken to the Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jail where he was placed in a restraint chair by defendant John Doe 2 and an inmate trustee. The plaintiff was taken to a secure cell. He remained in the restraint chair for the next 10 hours, but did receive two three minute restroom breaks. He was also assaulted by Bandy. Bandy forced the plaintiff to tuck his penis into his anus.

         He asked for medical attention while he was in the restraint chair. The next morning, John Doe 1 arrived and two additional transport officers, including Officer Davis, from Indiana arrived to finish transporting the plaintiff to Indiana.

         They drove straight through to the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) in Plainfield, Indiana. Because they did not stop, the plaintiff was forced to urinate and defecate on himself.

         Upon arrival at RDC, Craige wrote the plaintiff up on three frivolous disciplinary actions. He was given 105 days solitary confinement, and now is being held beyond his out date.

         The plaintiff is receiving pain medication for the injuries he sustained as a result of being ...


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.