BARR v. STATE OF INDIANA

Filing 4

Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2 ] is denied as presented. The plaintiff shall have through February 27, 2017, in which to either pay the � 36;400.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that he lacks the financial ability to do so. Mr. Barr shall have through February 27, 2017, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/26/2017. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROBERT BARR,
Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF INDIANA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) Case No. 1:17-cv-0193-TWP-MPB
)
)
)
)

Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied as presented. The
plaintiff shall have through February 27, 2017, 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 certificate of his inmate trust account (or
institutional equivalent) during the 6-month period preceding the filing of the complaint on January
18, 2017.
II. Screening
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the complaint is
subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the Court
dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” Id. To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which is sufficient to provide the defendant with
“fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam)

(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
The purpose of this requirement is Ato give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Wade v. Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th
Cir. 1993)(noting that the main purpose of Rule 8 is rooted in fair notice: a complaint Amust be
presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid
claim is alleged and if so what it is.@) (quotation omitted)). The complaint “must actually suggest
that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536 F.3d
663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Here, Mr. Barr alleges that on July 14, 2016, he was arrested while an inmate at the New
Castle Correctional Facility and transported to the Marion County Jail, where he remains to date.
He alleges that once at the Jail, the defendant State of Indiana, through the Marion County
Prosecutor, failed to bring him before the Marion County Court for an initial hearing and the setting
of bail. This failure, Mr. Barr alleges, resulted in a constitutional deprivation.
The State of Indiana is dismissed as a defendant because the Eleventh Amendment
immunity bars suits against states and their agencies regardless of the relief sought, whether
damages or injunctive relief. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 (1996);
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102 (1984). In addition, states
and their agencies are not Apersons@ subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 under the
circumstances alleged in Mr. Barr’s complaint. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491
U.S. 58 (1989).

III. Further Proceedings
Mr. Barr shall have through February 27, 2017, in which to show cause why Judgment
consistent with this Entry should not issue. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014,
1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show
cause, an IFP applicant’s case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely
notice or opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/26/2017

Distribution:
Robert Barr
Marion County Jail II
Inmate Mail/Parcels
730 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202