Higgason v. Tucker et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTS James H. Higgason, Jr. leave to proceed against Commissioner Robert Carter on an injunctive relief claim to replace his dental crown as required by the Eighth Amendment, DISMISSES all other claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DISMIS SES D. Tucker, Russell, Stetz, T. Sterling, K. Smith, J. Koons, Rojas, J. Collingsworth, F. Schaeffner, B. Myers, B. Leffert, J. Prater, J. Crousore, G. Porter, B. Click, S. Hall, E. Samuelson, M. Clark, T. Nice, and Sgt. Kochensparger,. DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Commissioner Robert Carter with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), C ommissioner Robert Carter to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 10/5/17. (Copy to pro se party and USM). (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMES H. HIGGASON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT CARTER,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-752 PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
James H. Higgason, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed this lawsuit without
paying the filing fee. He did not seek to proceed in forma pauperis, but because he has filed
multiple prior actions that were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (ECF 1-1 at 6), he
is barred from doing so by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) except for claims alleging that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The imminent danger exception is available
for “genuine emergencies” where time is pressing and the threat is real and proximate.
Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “Allegations of past
harm do not suffice; the harm must be imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is
filed.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003).
In his complaint, Higgason names twenty-one defendants and makes allegations
about many past events. However, claims for monetary damages based on past events are
not genuine emergencies because the harm has already occurred and there is no real and
proximate threat. Therefore, he may not proceed on any of those claims in this case.
Although Higgason cannot proceed on his claims based on past events, he may
proceed on claims based on current events which expose him to a real and proximate threat
of serious physical injury. Here, Higgason makes one such claim. He alleges he is missing
a dental crown that needs to be replaced. “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). Therefore, he may proceed against Commissioner Robert Carter on an
injunctive relief claim to replace his dental crown as required by the Eighth Amendment.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS James H. Higgason, Jr., leave to proceed against Commissioner Robert
Carter on an injunctive relief claim to replace his dental crown as required by the Eighth
Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(3) DISMISSES D. Tucker, Russell, Stetz, T. Sterling, K. Smith, J. Koons, Rojas, J.
Collingsworth, F. Schaeffner, B. Myers, B. Leffert, J. Prater, J. Crousore, G. Porter, B. Click,
S. Hall, E. Samuelson, M. Clark, T. Nice, and Sgt. Kochensparger;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve
process on Commissioner Robert Carter with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF
1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Commissioner Robert Carter to
respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b),
only to the claim for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening
order.
ENTERED: October 5, 2017
/s/ Philip Simon
Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?