United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 2) AND
SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
plaintiff, a pro se Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) detainee, filed a complaint
alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights at the
Kenosha County Detention Center. Dkt. No. 1. This order
resolves the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and screens the plaintiff’s
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
district court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in
forma pauperis (in other words, to proceed without
pre-paying the filing fee) if the plaintiff submits an
affidavit listing the assets he possesses, swearing that he
is unable to pay the fees, and stating his belief that he is
entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a).
plaintiff has filed such an affidavit. Dkt. No. 2. He states
that he is in ICE custody, is unemployed, has no property or
assets, and has no money in his checking account.
Id. Based on the plaintiff’s affidavit, the
court is satisfied that he has demonstrated that he is unable
to pay the filing fee. The court will grant the
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Standard for Screening Complaints
court is required to screen complaints brought by individuals
proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2). The court may dismiss a case, or part of a
case, if the claims alleged are “frivolous or
malicious, ” fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system,
plaintiffs must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide “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)). “Labels and conclusions” or a
“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
factual content of the complaint must allow the court to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Indeed, allegations must “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must state a
claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
courts follow the two-step analysis set forth in
Twombly to determine whether a complaint states a
claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. First, the court
determines whether the plaintiff’s legal conclusions
are supported by factual allegations. Id. Legal
conclusions not support by facts “are not entitled to
the assumption of truth.” Id. Second, the
court determines whether the well-pleaded factual allegations
“plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” Id. The court gives 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)).
context of a §1983 claim, the 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 the 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). A suit seeking monetary
damages under § 1983 also must allege that the
defendants were personally involved in the constitutional
deprivation. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 527
Facts Alleged in the Proposed Complaint
plaintiff is an ICE detainee. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶9. He
alleges that while he was in custody at the Kenosha County
Detention Center, defendant Unknown Dentist “tried to
take” tooth #32 from the plaintiff’s mouth, even
though there was nothing wrong with the tooth. Id.
at ¶2. This procedure harmed his gum, and Unknown
Dentist did not give the plaintiff “anything” and
“continued to make [the plaintiff] wait.”
Id. The plaintiff asserts that after four weeks of
pain and suffering, he went to “the dentist, which or
who extracted part of [his] ...