AFANADOR v. COUNTY OF LAWRENCE

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: June 14, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00092
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION

SCOTT M. AFANADOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:21-cv-00092-TWP-DML ) COUNTY OF LAWRENCE, ) ) Defendant. )

ENTRY SCREENING PRO SE COMPLAINT On June 8, 2021, Defendant County of Lawrence ("Defendant") removed this action from state court to this Court, asserting subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction because pro se Plaintiff Scott M. Afanador's ("Plaintiff") Complaint alleges a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights (Filing No. 1 at 1). The Notice of Removal states, "Given the pro se allegations, Defendant contends a screening of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915A is required." Id. at 2. The Court agrees that screening is appropriate. "The court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C § 1915A(a). On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—

(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.

28 U.S.C § 1915A(b). 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, [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 brings a claim for damages against the Defendant for allegedly violating his rights secured by the Fourth Amendment by wrongfully detaining him for criminal charges he alleges were subsequently vacated (see Filing No. 1-2). At this time, the Court has not determined that the action must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915A and therefore shall proceed. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a proper Rule 12 motion. SO ORDERED.

Date: _ 6/14/2021 ( Wan, 4 \ atten \rcatt Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge United States District Court toa, Southern District of Indiana Distribution: SCOTT M. AFANADOR Daniel Mark Witte 977035 TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL INDIANA PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY dwitte @travelers.com Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road PENDLETON, IN 46064