United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
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 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 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).
plaintiff's complaint names two defendants: 1) Sergeant
Brandon Martz; and 2)
plaintiff alleges that he is a mental health inmate and is
confined in the segregated housing unit. On June 25, 2018,
the plaintiff started a new “psychotic” medicine
but suffered a “psychotic” episode in his cell on
June 13, 2018. Dkt. 2. He made a request to defendant Martz
that he be seen by mental health staff.
administered “bear” repellant spray on the
plaintiff, and it burned his eyes, face, mouth, body,
testicles, penis, and anus for several hours. The plaintiff
was also in severe pain for several hours.
Jerry Gilley witnessed this incident and failed to intervene
to provide mental health treatment to the plaintiff. Instead,
Martz and Gilley allegedly high-fived each other.
plaintiff was seen by mental health staff after being
sprayed, and they determined he could ...