Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:15CV539
01-26-2016
MARQUIS ROWE, Plaintiff, v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Marquis Rowe, a pro se plaintiff, filed an in forma pauperis petition [DE 2] and a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [DE 1]. Rowe sues Octapharma Plasma for the alleged discrimination he suffered when Octapharma refused to let him donate plasma, supposedly because he has a traumatic brain injury.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), I must review the 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. Although the bulk of Section 1915 pertains to screening prisoner complaints, Section 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to prisoner and non-prisoner complaints alike, regardless of fee status. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999). To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009)(citing and quoting Twombly and Iqbal). "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." Id. at 602. Thus, the 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). Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that "[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).
Rowe brings his claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983, Rowe must allege that "the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of a federal right." Jackson v. Compton, 151 F.3d 1032, at *1 (7th Cir. 1998). Rowe sues what appears to be a private, non-state actor. He does not allege that Octapharma is a state actor or is acting under color of state law. In fact, he provides such little detail in his complaint that I can't make out any basis for wrong-doing. Moreover, the relief he seeks - an apology and the ability to be able to donate plasma again - is not the type of relief I can grant.
At bottom, Rowe has failed to state a claim against the named defendant. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the in forma pauperis petition (DE 4) is denied and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 26, 2016
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT