United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
RONNIE B. CISLO, Plaintiff,
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
EVANS BARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
In Forma Pauperis
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying
fees or costs, dkt , 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).
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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
plaintiff is receiving pain medication for the injuries he
sustained as a result of being ...