United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ERNEST J. PAGELS, Plaintiff,
DR. REGAN, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
April 11, 2015, the plaintiff, who is proceeding without a
lawyer, filed his complaint. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff
alleges that the defendant failed to help him move to Panama
City, Florida and to help him make community contacts there.
Id. at 2. The court has carefully reviewed the
plaintiff’s allegations, and concludes that the
plaintiff does not state a claim for which this court can
grant him relief. For the reasons explained below, the court
will dismiss the complaint.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
1915(e)(2)(B) requires a court to dismiss a case at any time
if the court determines that it “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” For this
reason, district courts “screen” complaints filed
by self-represented plaintiffs, to determine whether the
complaint must be dismissed under these standards.
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 for relief under the federal notice
pleading system, the plaintiff shall provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The
plaintiff need not 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
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
(citation omitted). 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.
plaintiff alleges that his clinical psychologist, Dr. Regan,
went “behind [his] back, ” and did not help him
find a good apartment in Panama City, Florida. Dkt. No. 1 at
2. He indicates that Dr. Regan did not help him move to
Panama City, nor did she help him “get associated with
First Baptist [Church] of Panama City, FL.”
Id. The plaintiff alleges that all Fr. Regan does is
give him excuses, “like everyone else in Milwaukee . .
. .” Id. The plaintiff’s complaint
discusses the fact that he is disabled, and asserts that at
every turn, everyone from whom he seeks help-even his
girlfriend-fails him. He says that Dr. Regan does not want to
help him, or to “stick out [her] neck for me in the
community . . . .” Id. at 3. The plaintiff
wants someone to talk to police departments, libraries,
landlords, and others, to help “get everyone off [his]
case.” Id. He asks the court to direct Dr.
Regan to help him move to Panama City, to help him secure a
good, comfortable apartment, and to tell the police in Panama
City that he is coming and that they should keep the reckless
people away from him. Id. at 6-7.
court understands that the plaintiff has a disability, and is
struggling. He is frustrated with everyone in Milwaukee-he
feels that they’ve made no effort to help him, despite
his disability. He wants to move, to start over, and he feels
that Dr. Regan-an important figure in his life, and someone
who believes has the power to assist him-has not given him as
much help as he would have liked.
there is no federal law that requires Dr. Regan to help the
plaintiff move. There is no law that requires her to talk
with people in the Panama City community to pave the way for
him there. There is no law that gives the plaintiff the right
to obtain that kind of help-not even the Americans with
Disabilities Act creates such a right. The plaintiff has not
alleged that Fr. Regan violated any of the plaintiff’s
federal statutory or constitutional rights. While it is clear
that the plaintiff wants and needs help, this court does not
have the authority to provide relief to the plaintiff based
on the facts that he has alleged in this complaint. For that
reason, the court must the plaintiff’s complaint under
court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), because it is
frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief can be
order and the judgment to follow are final. A dissatisfied
party may appeal this court’s decision to the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this court a
notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, 4. This court may
extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension
and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able
to meet the 30-day deadline. See Federal Rule of Appellate
certain circumstances, a party may ask this court to alter or
amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of
judgment. The court cannot extend this deadline. See Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). Any motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a
reasonable time, generally ...