Johnson v. Arvin
Johnson v. Arvin
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DOMINIC MACK JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-575-PPS-AZ
M. ARVIN,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER Dominic Mack Johnson, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. [DE 1]. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94(2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Johnson alleges that Sgt. M. Arvin used excessive force against him on April 1, 2025, around 7:32 a.m. Johnson asserts that he was handcuffed and laying on the ground on his belly when M. Arvin punched him in the eye. [DE 1 at 2]. For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Dominic Mack Johnson leave to proceed against M. Arvin in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force against Johnson on April 1, 2025, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) DISMISSES all other claims; (3) DIRECTS the clerk, under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) M. Arvin at the Indiana Department of Correction, with a
copy of this order and the complaint [DE 1]; (4) ORDERS the Indiana Department of Correction to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known home address of the defendant if he does not waive service and if it has such information; and (5) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), M. Arvin to respond, as provided for
in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 3, 2025.
/s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Reference
- Status
- Unknown