ASH v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 11

ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND, AND DIRECTING FILING OF TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENT. Plaintiff Cassius Ash, an inmate at Marion County Jail II, initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint. Because Mr. Ash is a &qu ot;prisoner", this Court has an obligation under to screen his complaint before service on the defendants. For the reasons explained in the ORDER, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and Mr. A sh may file an amended complaint. Mr. Ash is also directed to file a copy of his inmate trust account statement. Mr. Ash has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court previously instructed him to submit a copy of the transactions associa ted with his inmate trust account for the six months preceding this action. (Dkt. 8 ). Mr. Ash has filed a document that purports to provide this information, but the document is blank. (Dkt. [9-1]). Mr. Ash has through June 25, 2021, to submit his trust account information. The failure to meet this deadline will result in the dismissal of the action without further warning or ability to show cause. The clerk is directed to send Mr. Ash a copy of the Court's pro se complaint form. Copy sent pursuant to distribution list. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Complaint Form)(AKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CASSIUS ASH,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:21-cv-00693-TWP-MPB

ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT,
GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND,
AND DIRECTING FILING OF TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENT
Plaintiff Cassius Ash, an inmate at Marion County Jail II, initiated this lawsuit by filing a
complaint. Because Mr. Ash is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), this Court has an
obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants.
For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and Mr. Ash may file an amended complaint. Mr. Ash is also directed to
file a copy of his inmate trust account statement.
II. SCREENING STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
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). 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); Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed liberally and held to "a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720.
II. THE COMPLAINT
The complaint names the following defendants: The State of Indiana, Westville
Correctional Facility, Daevida Ash, and John the owner of Liquorland. Mr. Ash is seeking an
award of damages. The complaint states that Mr. Ash is serving an executed sentence at Westville
Correctional Facility. His incarceration has caused him to lose his social security disability
insurance benefits. His son appears to be under the care of Daevida Ash, who allegedly works for
John at Liquorland and has a substance abuse problem.
III. DISCUSSION
The complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Eleventh
Amendment bars claims against the State of Indiana. Joseph v. Board of Regents of University of
Wisconsin System, 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005). Westville Correctional Facility is not a
suable entity under § 1983. See Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012).
Finally, the complaint does not allege that Daevida Ash or John, the owner of Liquorland, has
violated federal law. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IV. OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND
To avoid dismissal of the action, Mr. Ash may file an amended complaint by June 25,
2021. The amended complaint must bear the correct case number, 1:21-cv-00693-TWP-MPB, and
the words "Amended Complaint." The amended complaint will completely replace the original.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to add defendants, dkt [5], is granted. The amended complaint
must set forth all defendants, claims, and allegations Mr. Ash wishes to present. The failure to file

2

a timely amended complaint will result in the dismissal of the action without further warning or
ability to show cause.
The clerk is directed to send Mr. Ash a copy of the Court's pro se complaint form.
V. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Mr. Ash has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court previously instructed
him to submit a copy of the transactions associated with his inmate trust account for the six months
preceding this action. (Dkt. 8). Mr. Ash has filed a document that purports to provide this
information, but the document is blank. (Dkt. 9-1). Mr. Ash has through June 25, 2021, to submit
his trust account information. The failure to meet this deadline will result in the dismissal of the
action without further warning or ability to show cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

6/4/2021

Distribution:
CASSIUS ASH
629535
MARION COUNTY JAIL II
MARION COUNTY JAIL II
Inmate Mail/Parcels
730 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202

3