ORDER granting Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Nine Dollars and Eighty-Four Cents ($9.84). He shall ha ve through September 19, 2017, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. The Clerk is directed to include a form motion for assistance recruiting counsel along with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry. If the plaintiff files this form, the Court will reconsider the plaintiff's request. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Mark Garrad in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) electronically. Copies to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/23/2017. (MAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANTONIO THOMAS COLLIER,
Entry Discussing Filing Fee, Request for Counsel, Screening Complaint
and Directing Further Proceedings
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt , is granted. The
plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Nine Dollars and Eighty-Four Cents ($9.84).
He shall have through September 19, 2017, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district
The plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel, dkt , is denied without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to include a form motion for assistance recruiting counsel along with the
plaintiff’s copy of this Entry. If the plaintiff files this form, the Court will reconsider the plaintiff’s
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Industrial Facility.
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 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
Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). 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 formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff Antonio Thomas Collier alleges that he filed a grievance against Mark Garrad, the
Maintenance Supervisor, and in response, Mr. Garrad successfully sought to have Mr. Collier
“reclassed”/removed from his prison job in the maintenance department.
Given the foregoing, the claim that defendant Mark Garrad retaliated against Mr. Collier
shall proceed as submitted. This claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant
Mark Garrad in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint
(docket 1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
The clerk is designated to serve the Indiana Department of Correction employees
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Electronic service to:
Mark Garrad, Maintenance Supervisor at Correctional Industrial Facility
ANTONIO THOMAS COLLIER
PENDLETON - CIF
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
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?