RUIZ v. THOMAS et al

Filing 5

ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 3 ) is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. The clerk is designated p ursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants (1) Corporal Jay Thomas, (2) Officer Brown and (3) Sgt. Price in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 2), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/19/2016. (MAT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

ALAN JOSUE RUIZ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
JAY THOMAS Corporal, et al.
Defendants.

No. 4:16-cv-00228-TWP-TAB

Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt 3) is granted. The assessment of
even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
The complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). This statute directs that the court
dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” Id. The court will direct the further development of any claim which
is not dismissed on this basis. The parties will be notified when this determination has been made.
The plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Clark County Jail (“the Jail”).
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).
II.
The plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2016, Corporal Jay Thomas and Officer Brown
came to the plaintiff’s cell and assaulted him because of his race. Specifically, the plaintiff was
knocked to the ground, punched, kicked and suffocated while he was held by other officers on the
floor and called a “dirty-Mexican.” The plaintiff was then taken near the booking area where Sgt.
Price and other officers harassed him by tightening his restraints and calling him names over the
course of several hours.
Given the foregoing, the following claims shall proceed:
Defendants Corporal Jay Thomas, Officer Brown and Sgt. Price allegedly subjected the
plaintiff to excessive force while a pretrial detainee in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473-74 (2015) (stating “a pretrial detainee can prevail
by providing objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related
to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.”).
Defendants Corporal Jay Thomas, Officer Brown and Sgt. Price allegedly discriminated
against the plaintiff by targeting him for abuse because of his race or national origin in violation
of the Equal Protection Clause. Herro v. City of Milwaukee, 44 F.3d 550, 552 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A

person bringing an action under the Equal Protection Clause must show intentional discrimination
against him because of his membership in a particular class, not merely that he was treated unfairly
as an individual.”) (internal quotation omitted).
III.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
(1) Corporal Jay Thomas, (2) Officer Brown and (3) Sgt. Price in the manner specified by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 2), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
Entry.

Date: 12/19/2016

Distribution:
ALAN JOSUE RUIZ
7270
CLARK COUNTY JAIL
Inmate Mail/Parcels
501 East Court Avenue
Jeffersonville, IN 47130
Corporal Jay Thomas
CLARK COUNTY JAIL
501 East Court Avenue
Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Officer Brown
CLARK COUNTY JAIL
501 East Court Avenue
Jeffersonville, IN 47130
Sgt. Price
CLARK COUNTY JAIL
501 East Court Avenue
Jeffersonville, IN 47130