United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Shannon Daily is presently a prisoner in the Jackson County
Jail in Indiana. He filed this lawsuit on April 12, 2019,
seeking damages for eighty days of imprisonment when his
parole was revoked. The Court makes the following rulings.
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Shannon Dailey's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt. , is granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), an initial
partial filing fee of seventeen dollars and thirty-three
cents ($17.33) is assessed and shall be paid to the clerk of
the district court no later than May 17,
Mr. Dailey is excused from pre-paying the full
filing fee, he 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
Screening of the Complaint
Mr. Dailey 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 defendants. Pursuant to Section 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).
Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). To
[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 Mr. Dailey are construed
liberally and held to “a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Cesal, 851 F.3d
Dailey was an inmate of the Indiana Department of Correction
until 2017 when he was released on parole. He violated
conditions of his parole, was arrested, and spent a number of
days in jail before he was released back to parole. Mr.
Dailey again violated his parole, was arrested, and spent
several more days in jail before again being released back to
parole. He discharged his parole on November 2, 2018.
Dailey now seeks damages for the eighty days of imprisonment
he served on the parole violations because he should never
have been on parole. He contends that his original sentence
imposed probation, not parole. Mr. Dailey also challenges a
parole officer's authority to issue warrants for parole
violations. What Mr. Dailey does not plead, however, is
whether his parole has been found to be unlawful. This
failure is dispositive to this lawsuit.