Weathers v. Naves et al

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 4/22/10. (jld) Modified on 4/22/2010 to reflect this is an opinion(jld).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA GEORGE WEATHERS, Plaintiff, v. S. J. NAVES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-137-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER George Weathers, a pro se Plaintiff, filed a § 1983 Complaint. He did not pay the filing fee, seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or provide summonses or USM-285 forms. Although this Court's usual practice is to issue a deficiency order in such a situation, because the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it would be futile to direct him to cure these deficiencies. "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curium) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the Plaintiff's claims are contained in a single paragraph. While he was confined in the Elkhart County Jail, "Lt. Naves called me a black Mother Fucker. Then on another occasion Lt. Naves told Officer Beato over a P.A. system to tell me to stop crying like a bitch and to lock my black ass down in segregation." (Compl. 2, DE 1.) Accepting these allegations as true, they

do not do not state a claim because "[t]he use of racially derogatory language, while unprofessional and deplorable, does not violate the Constitution," and because "[s]tanding alone, simple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws." DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000). Although these remarks, as alleged, would be inappropriate and unprofessional, they do not provide a basis for the Plaintiff to state a valid claim, and this case must be dismissed. For the forgoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). SO ORDERED on April 22, 2010. s/ Theresa L. Springmann THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2