United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DAVID J. HARMON, Plaintiff,
ROBERT E. CARTER, DUSHAN ZATECKY, DUANE ALSIP, Defendants.
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND DENYING MOTION TO MAINTAIN SUIT AS
R. SWEENEY II, JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for resolution of three motions by
Plaintiff David Harman and for screening of his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Harman's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dkt. , is granted to the
extent that he is assessed an initial partial filing fee of
Twenty-Seven Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($27.33).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Mr. Harman shall
have through October 4, 2019, to pay this
sum to the clerk of the district court.
Mr. Harman 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 and Dismissal of Complaint
Harman is a prisoner at the Pendleton Correctional Facility
(Pendleton). He brings this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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
to § 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 pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
complaint names the following defendants: 1) Commissioner
Robert E. Carter; 2) Warden Dushan Zatecky; and 3) Assistant
Warden Duane Alsip. The plaintiff sues each defendant in his
individual and official capacity. He seeks compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief.
plaintiff alleges that Pendleton is overcrowded. He alleges
that the Warden and Assistant Warden have started
double-bunking inmates. He also alleges that due to the
overcrowding and being on lockdown, medical treatments have
been delayed ...