SMITH v. ELLIOTT et al

Filing 13

ENTRY SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE - In its Entry of April 13, 2022, the Court granted pro se Plaintiff Deonte' Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his Complaint, and directed him to correct his pl eading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint no later than May 13, 2022, or his action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Filing No. 9 ). On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Filing No. 12 ). Becaus e Plaintiff's case is proceeding in forma pauperis, the action is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At this time, the Court has not determined that the action must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e) and the refore shall proceed. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a proper Rule 12 motion. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) requires the Court to order service for him. Accordingly, t he Clerk is designated pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) to issue process to Defendants Daniel Elliott, Ryan Bowersox, and William McInerney in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the Amended Complaint (Filing No. 12 ), applicable for ms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Because the Amended Complaint names Daniel Elliott, Ryan Bowersox, and William McInerney as the only Defendants in this action, the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Lucy Frick, Emily Chastain, and Laura Pitts as defendants on the docket. Copies sent pursuant to distribution list. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/10/2022.(AKH)

Case 1:22-cv-00375-TWP-MJD Document 13 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DEONTE' SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL ELLIOTT,
RYAN BOWERSOX, and
WILLIAM MCINERNEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-cv-00375-TWP-MJD

ENTRY SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE
In its Entry of April 13, 2022, the Court granted pro se Plaintiff Deonte' Smith's
("Plaintiff") motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his Complaint, and directed him to
correct his pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint no later than May 13, 2022, or
his action would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Filing No. 9). On May 2,
2022, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Filing No. 12). Because Plaintiff's case is proceeding
in forma pauperis, the action is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
District courts have an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints
before service on the defendant and 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. Dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute is an exercise of the court's discretion. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). 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 under federal pleading standards,

Case 1:22-cv-00375-TWP-MJD Document 13 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 47

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to 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). Thus, a "plaintiff must do better than putting a few
words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to her that might be redressed by the law." Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403
(7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
In this civil action, pro se Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants
Daniel Elliott, Ryan Bowersox, and William McInerney each of whom is an Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department officer (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff brings this action
against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges that on October 21, 2020, he was forcefully
removed from his vehicle, illegally searched and seized, and unlawfully detained by the police
officer Defendants. He seeks declaratory judgment as well as compensatory damages in the
amount of $350,000.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $250,000.00. (Filing No. 12). At
this time, the Court has not determined that the action must be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)
and therefore shall proceed. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a proper Rule 12
motion.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3)
requires the Court to order service for him. Accordingly, the Clerk is designated pursuant to Rule
4(c)(3) to issue process to Defendants Daniel Elliott, Ryan Bowersox, and William McInerney in
the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the Amended Complaint (Filing No.
12), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and
Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Because the Amended Complaint names Daniel

2

Case 1:22-cv-00375-TWP-MJD Document 13 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 48

Elliott, Ryan Bowersox, and William McInerney as the only Defendants in this action, the Clerk
is directed to terminate Lucy Frick, Emily Chastain, and Laura Pitts as defendants on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Date:

5/10/2022

Distribution:
DEONTE' SMITH
690186
MARION COUNTY JAIL II
ADC Mail Room
695 Justice Way
Indianapolis, IN 46203
Daniel Elliott
Ryan Bowersox
William McInerney
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
50 N. Alabama St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204

3