United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF
PROCESS
TANYA
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
I.
In Forma Pauperis Status
The
plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt.
[2], is granted. The assessment of even an
initial partial filing fee is waived because the plaintiff
has no assets and no means by which to pay a partial filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Accordingly, no initial
partial filing fee is due at this time.
Although
the plaintiff is excused from pre-paying the full
filing fee, she still must pay the three hundred and fifty
dollar ($350.00) filing fee pursuant to the statutory formula
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) when able.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (“the prisoner
shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing
fee.”).
II.
Screening Complaint
A.
Screening Standard
Ms.
Capps is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated at
Bartholomew County Jail. Because the plaintiff is a
“prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(c), this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a) to screen her 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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.
2017). 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.”
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation omitted).
B.
The Complaint
Ms.
Capps asserts that Nurse Holly Calhoun and Doctor Pearson (or
Person) have violated her Eighth Amendment rights because she
was denied medical treatment while incarcerated in
Bartholomew County Jail in August 2017, May 7, 2018 to
October 2018, and December 11, 2018 to the present. She also
asserts that she was forced to take medication that she did
not request. She further alleges the medication requires a
level check, which the Jail did not do before giving the
medication, and that she was not given a proper dose. She
asserts that medical forced her to take the medication to be
in compliance. She requests monetary and injunctive relief.
C.
Discussion of Claims
Ms.
Capps is currently a pretrial detainee and not a convicted
prisoner. This is relevant because Ms. Capps'
constitutional rights as a pretrial detainee are derived from
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather
than the Eighth Amendment, which is applicable to convicted
prisoners. See, e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson, __
U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015); Budd v.
Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh
Circuit clarified that a pretrial detainee's medical care
claim is subject only to the objective unreasonableness
inquiry identified in Kingsley. Miranda v. County of
Lake, No. 17-1603, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22229, at *30
(7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018). Accordingly, Ms. Capps'
Fourteenth Amendment medical care claims against Nurse
Calhoun and Doctor Pearson shall proceed.
There
are no allegations against “CRH.” It appears in
the caption and is identified as a defendant but is otherwise
not mentioned in the complaint. Any claim against CRH is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Potter v. Clark, 497
F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (“Where a complaint
alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the
defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant
except for his name ...