United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
RUDOLPH T. RANDA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Deron Darnell Love, who is incarcerated at Dodge Correctional
Institution, is representing himself. He filed a complaint
alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights while he was confined at the Milwaukee County Jail.
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s
petition to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee
(in forma pauperis). The plaintiff has been assessed
an initial partial filing fee of $66.06. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). He has paid $16.16, and he lacks
funds to make additional payments at this time. See
ECF No. 12; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
Court shall screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d
895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
“Malicious, ” although sometimes treated as a
synonym for “frivolous, ” “is more usefully
construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003)
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, the plaintiff is required to provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is not
necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his
statement need only “give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, a complaint that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state
a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). “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. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should
follow the principles set forth in Twombly by first,
“identifying pleadings that, because they are no more
than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Legal
conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. If there are well-pleaded factual allegations,
the court must, second, “assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Id.
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or
persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore
v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir.
2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North Fond du
Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The court is
obliged to give the plaintiff’s pro se
allegations, “however inartfully pleaded, ” a
liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
plaintiff was confined at the Milwaukee County Jail at all
times relevant. He is suing Captain Goodlette; Lt. Mikovich;
Milwaukee County Jail Staff; CO Wilbourn; CO Wiken; and Dr.
plaintiff alleges that in October and November 2011, Captain
Goodlette made Jail staff handcuff him and leave him in his
room for weeks. Because his hands were cuffed to his waist,
the plaintiff had to urinate and defecate on himself which
caused bumps, bruises, and rashes. The plaintiff caught an
infection and suffered from pain. Captain Goodlette also had
staff take the plaintiff’s bed, sheets, and blankets
which caused him to have neck and back pains, as well as a
very bad cold and headaches. In addition, staff used
excessive force on the plaintiff during this time period.
the plaintiff alleges that in 2013, Lt. Mikovich forced him
in a shower and then took him outside when he was still wet,
just to punish him. As a result, the plaintiff got a bad
cold. Lt. Mikovich also forced the plaintiff to eat nutraloaf
even though he is allergic to onions, tomatoes, milk, and
beans. Milwaukee County Jail staff told the plaintiff that he
could either eat the nutraloaf and get sick and die, or
starve. The plaintiff got sick from eating the nutraloaf.
and 2014, CO Wilbourne kicked the plaintiff in his arms and
hands three times causing injury and pain.
October 2015, Jail staff turned the plaintiff’s water
off so he could not drink water or flush the toilet. The
plaintiff could not drink water for days and he got
dehydrated. He also got an infection because he could not
flush his toilet which caused his room to be unsanitary.
plaintiff alleges that on November 6, 2015, CO Wiken choked
him and hit him on his face for no reason. CO Wiken also
allegedly made the plaintiff bust ...