ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.

I. SCREENING COMPLAINT

A. Screening Standard

Plaintiff Angelito Mercado is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Bartholomew County Jail. Because Mercado is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 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). To survive a motion to dismiss, 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 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). 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." Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).

B. The Complaint

In his complaint, Mercado sues Dr. Michael Person ("Dr. Person") for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, racial discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. 1-1. Mercado alleges that on September 26, 2018, because he had missed his dose in the morning for the second time in 6 months, Dr. Person took away his Thorazine medication. Thorazine is an anti-psychotic medication for mental health treatment. Mercado alleges that other inmates of a different race have been allowed to miss their medication numerous times without loss of their medication. Mercado requests $25,000 and other monetary damages.

C. Discussion of Claims

Mercado's allegations support a reasonable inference that Dr. Person was deliberately indifferent to Mercado's serious mental health needs. Accordingly, this action shall proceed with claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Dr. Person was deliberately indifferent to Mercado's serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 His state law claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress against Dr. Person shall also proceed.

His Fourteenth Amendment2 Equal Protection claim against Dr. Person is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because no facts are alleged that would support his claims that he has been discriminated against based on his race.

II. DIRECTING RESPONSE

Dr. Person has until December 14, 2018, to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint.

III. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND ACTIONS TAKEN

The claims remaining in this case are Mercado's:

The Court has additionally taken or directed the following actions:

(1) Mercado's claim of racial discrimination is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

(2) Dr. Person has until December 14, 2018, to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint.

SO ORDERED.