MERCADO v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al
Entry Denying Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Dismissal of Action - Plaintiff Angelito's Mercado's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 13 is granted. This action must be therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Mercardo's renewed motion to maintain evidence 14 is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/28/2017. (JRB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANGELITO C. MERCADO,
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY SHERIFF’S
MATT MYERS Sheriff,
Entry Denying Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis,
Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Dismissal of Action
Plaintiff Angelito’s Mercado’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 13] is
granted. No payment of a fee is required at this time. Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, the
plaintiff should be aware that he owes the filing fee. “All [28 U.S.C.] § 1915 has ever done is
excuse pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable for them, and for other costs,
although poverty may make collection impossible.” Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023,
1025 (7th Cir. 1996).
In his initial complaint, Mercado asserted that while he was incarcerated at the
Bartholomew County Jail, his legal mail has been stolen and the grievance process has not been
followed. That complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In dismissing the complaint, the Court explained that the complaint must identify those
who are personally responsible for the alleged constitutional deprivations and that an inmate
does not have a constitutional right to a grievance procedure.
Mercado has filed a belated amended complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Like the
complaint, the amended complaint must be dismissed. The amended complaint alleges only that
Mercado’s grievances were ignored or mishandled and that Captain Martocia is responsible for
the grievance process. But, as the Court has already explained, because there is no constitutional
right to a grievance process, an alleged failure to execute a grievance process properly fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31
(7th Cir. 1996) (“any right to a grievance procedure is a procedural right, not a substantive one.
Accordingly, a state’s inmate grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest protected
by the Due Process Clause.”).
In short, Mercardo was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint that states a
claim upon which relief can be granted, but has failed to do so. This action must be therefore
dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Mercardo’s renewed motion to maintain
evidence [dkt 14] is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ANGELITO C. MERCADO
Bartholomew County Jail
543 2nd Street
Columbus, IN 47201
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?