MERRIWEATHER v. HENDRICKS COUNTY JAIL

Filing 21

ORDER Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Third Amended Complaint, and Providing Opportunity to Show Cause - Mr. Merriweather's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. 18 , is granted to the extent that h e is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.60. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). He shall have through June 13, 2022, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. Mr. Merriweather's third amended complaint is a fan ciful and implausible "paranoid stream of consciousness." Walton v. Walker, 364 F. App'x 256, 257 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of frivolous case); Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 ( 7th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of "delusional" complaint without an evidentiary hearing). It is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Merriweather shall have through June 13, 2022, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Order should not issue (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 5/9/2022. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)

Case 1:21-cv-03099-JPH-MPB Document 21 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL CRAIG MERRIWEATHER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
HENDRICKS COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-03099-JPH-MPB

Order Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Third
Amended Complaint, and Providing Opportunity to Show Cause
Michael Craig Merriweather is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Miami Correctional
Facility. He filed this civil action regarding events that occurred while he was incarcerated at
Hendricks County Jail in Danville, Indiana. Since filing this action, Mr. Merriweather has amended
his complaint three times. He has also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because
Mr. Merriweather 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 third amended complaint before service on the
defendants. Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2017) ("For pleading purposes, once an
amended complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture.").
I. In Forma Pauperis Status
Mr. Merriweather's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [18], is granted to the extent
that he is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.60. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). He shall have
through June 13, 2022, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.
Mr. Merriweather is informed that after the initial partial filing fee is paid, he will be
obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income each month

1

Case 1:21-cv-03099-JPH-MPB Document 21 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 90

that the amount in his account exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 is paid. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2).
II. Screening Standard
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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). 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. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
III. The Third Amended Complaint
The third amended complaint is a letter that neither lists any defendants nor seeks any
particular relief. The Court notes that Mr. Merriweather's previous amended complaint, dkt. [5],
was submitted on the Court's prisoner complaint form, named 19 defendants, and requested
injunctive relief and $15,000,000 in damages. All of Mr. Merriweather's complaints in this action
have included allegations similar to those in his third amended complaint, which include:
•

Drugs were placed in his food by a variety of correctional staff, medical staff, and
other inmates;

•

He was given two juice cartons with needle punctures in them;

•

Numerous inmates on different occasions gave him coffee that was meant to kill
him;
2

Case 1:21-cv-03099-JPH-MPB Document 21 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 91

•

Food brought to him during his trial was meant to kill him and caused him to drool,
fall asleep, suffer from a fever, and his face to swell;

•

A correctional officer checked his blood pressure which was "deadly," but the
correctional officer refused to call 911;

•

A nurse checked his blood pressure and became sad but refused to call an
ambulance or tell Mr. Merriweather what his blood pressure was. As a result, he
was incoherent at trial the next day;

•

He's been exposed to black mold, a lack of ventilation, and death threats;

•

Other inmates were using a cellphone to monitor his phone calls;

•

Other inmates told him that there was a 50-member SWAT team sent to assassinate
him for a $100,000 reward.
IV. Dismissal of Third Amended Complaint

Mr. Merriweather's third amended complaint is a fanciful and implausible "paranoid stream
of consciousness." Walton v. Walker, 364 F. App'x 256, 257 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal
with prejudice of frivolous case); Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774
(7th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of "delusional" complaint without an evidentiary hearing). It
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
V. Opportunity to Show Cause
Mr. Merriweather shall have through June 13, 2022, in which to show cause why
Judgment consistent with this Order 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."); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, 637 F. App'x 954, 954–955 (7th Cir. 2016) ("In

3

Case 1:21-cv-03099-JPH-MPB Document 21 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 92

keeping with this court's advice in cases such as Luevano . . . , the court gave Jennings 14 days in
which to show cause why the case should not be dismissed on that basis.").
SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/9/2022

Distribution:
MICHAEL CRAIG MERRIWEATHER
172642
MIAMI - CF
MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
3038 West 850 South
Bunker Hill, IN 46914-9810
Financial Deputy Clerk

4