United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER REGARDING FILING FEE, SCREENING AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
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).
Screening and Dismissing Complaint
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
[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.
Stone sues CIF because he was denied cell decontamination
from September 6 to 9, 2018. Dkt. 1 at 1. He requests
Discussion of Claims
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).
Directing Further Proceedings
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 ...