United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 2),
SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1), AND
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge.
plaintiff was incarcerated at the Winnebago Correctional
Center when he filed this pro se complaint alleging
that the defendants violated his civil rights. This order
resolves the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and screens the plaintiff’s
IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this action because
the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint.
28 U.S.C. §1915. That law allows a court to give an
incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with his
lawsuit without pre-paying the civil case-filing fee, as long
as he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is a
requirement that the plaintiff pay an initial partial filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays the
initial partial filing fee, the court may allow the plaintiff
to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through
deductions from his prisoner account. Id.
February 11, 2016, the court issued an order requiring the
plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $29.40.
Dkt. No. 4. The court received the initial partial filing fee
on February 25, 2016. Although the plaintiff is now out of
custody, the court will grant the plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because he
was unable to pay the full filing fee when he filed the case.
The plaintiff still must pay the $320.60 balance of the
filing fee in full, however. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The
plaintiff must submit payments to the clerk of court, and
shall clearly identify the payments by the case name and
SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Standard for Screening Complaints
requires the court to 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 part or all of a complaint if the
plaintiff raises 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.
§1915A(b). The court is obliged to give the
plaintiff’s pro se allegations, “however
inartfully pleaded, ” a liberal construction.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, the
plaintiff must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff does not need 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 Atl. 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 follow
the principles set forth in Twombly. First, they
must “identify pleadings that, because they are no
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A plaintiff
must support legal conclusions with factual allegations.
Id. Second, if there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, courts must “assume their veracity and
then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.” Id.
Facts Alleged in the Proposed Complaint
to the plaintiff’s complaint, he was on combat duty in
Iraq from March 2004 to sometime later in 2004. Dkt. No. 1 at
2. On August 25, 2005, he was released from active duty.
Id. He alleges that he returned from Iraq with ugly,
painful sores. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff alleges
that the military and the Veterans Administration failed to
acknowledge that he had the sores. Id. at 3.
plaintiff alleges that he conducted “endless research
online, ” and finally discovered on WebMD,
September 2010, pictures representing the sores he gets.
Id. at 3. The plaintiff immediately contacted his
local family doctor in Escanaba, Michigan. Id. On
October 14, 2010, the doctor conducted a biopsy, and sent the
sample to the Leishmania Diagnostics Laboratory at Walter
Reed U.S. Army Medical Hospital. Id. On October 19,
2010, the lab confirmed that the plaintiff has a disease
called Leishmanasis, which can only be contracted in third
world countries (of which the plaintiff alleges that Iraq is
receiving the news, the plaintiff contacted the lab at Walter
Reed and found out that the disease has two stages.
Id. The first stage involves sores on the outside of
the body, and is treatable. Id. In the second stage,
the sores “go internal, ” and there is no cure.
Id. at 4. They will begin to shut the
plaintiff’s organs down and kill him. Id. The
lab informed the plaintiff that the only place to treat this