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.

Stone v. Cif

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

March 29, 2019

BRANDON STONE, Plaintiff,
v.
CIF, Defendant.

          ORDER REGARDING FILING FEE, SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         I. Filing Fee

         Plaintiff Brandon Stone shall have through April 30, 2019, in which to either pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that he lacks the financial ability to do so. If he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his request must be accompanied by a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action on March 25, 2019. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

         II. Screening and Dismissing Complaint

         A. Screening Standard

         Mr. Stone is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Correctional Industrial Facility (CIF). 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(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendant. 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 under federal pleading standards,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 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.” Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.

         B. The Complaint

         Mr. Stone sues CIF because he was denied cell decontamination from September 6 to 9, 2018. Dkt. 1 at 1. He requests monetary damages.

         C. Discussion of Claims

         Any claims against CIF must be dismissed for failure to state a claim because CIF is a building, not a suable entity under § 1983. Accordingly, Mr. Stone's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         III. Directing Further Proceedings

         The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action at present. Instead, Mr. Stone shall have through April 30, 2019, in which to file an amended complaint. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015) (“We've often said that before dismissing a case . . . a judge ...


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.