ROBERTS v. MORRIS et al
Filing
4
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISCUSSING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. No assessment of an initial partial filing fe e is feasible at this time. The Floyd County Jail, to the extent it is also named as a defendant, is dismissed because it is a building. The claim against Officer Vest is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No p artial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. The clerk shall update the docket to reflect the dismissal of defendant Officer Vest and the Floyd County Jail. The claim of excessive force alleged against Officer Morris shall proceed. The clerk shall issue and serve process on defendant Officer D. Morris. Process in this case shall consist of the complaint filed on 8/25/2014, applicable forms, and this Entry. Copy sent to pltf via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/4/2014. (JLM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
DONALD BRUCE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER D. MORRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:14-cv-0102-TWP-WGH
Entry Granting In Forma Pauperis Status, Discussing Complaint,
Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2) is granted. No assessment of
an initial partial filing fee is feasible at this time.
I. Background
Because plaintiff Donald Bruce Roberts is a Aprisoner@ as defined by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(h)
when he filed his complaint, the Court has screened his complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. '
1915A(b). Pursuant to this statute, “[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim
if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.
Ct. 910, 921 (2007).
Mr. Roberts’ claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is confined at the Floyd
County Jail. He brings this civil rights complaint against two defendants: 1) Officer D. Morris and
2) Officer R. Vest. 1 He alleges that on March 17, 2014, Officer Morris kicked him twice while he
was brushing his teeth. Mr. Roberts further alleges that on May 24, 2014, Officer Vest told a visitor
that he, Mr. Roberts, was a “n- hating honky.” He seeks compensatory damages.
1
The Floyd County Jail, to the extent it is also named as a defendant, is dismissed because it is a building,
not a “person” subject to suit under section 1983.
II. Screening
To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Such a statement must provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the
claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 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)
(internal quotation omitted). Pro se complaints such as that filed by Mr. Roberts are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson,
551 U.S. at 94; Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Calling an inmate derogatory names is unprofessional but it does not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. See Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987) (making
racially derogatory remarks is unprofessional and inexcusable but does not support a constitutional
claim); McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir. 1993) (verbal threats and name calling are
not actionable under section 1983). The claim against Officer Vest is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. The clerk
shall update the docket to reflect the dismissal of defendant Officer Vest and the Floyd County
Jail.
III. Service of Process
The claim of excessive force alleged against Officer Morris shall proceed.
The clerk shall issue and serve process on defendant Officer D. Morris in the manner
specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Process in this case shall consist of the complaint filed on
August 25, 2014, applicable forms, and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/4/2014
Distribution:
Donald Bruce Roberts
#24506
Floyd County Jail
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P. O. Box 1406
New Albany, IN 47150
________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Officer D. Morris
Floyd County Jail
P. O. Box 1406
New Albany, IN 47150
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
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?