United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
SHANE T. ROBBINS, Plaintiff,
WARDEN BRIAN FOSTER, ANN SCARPITA, JOHN SCHETTLE, NANCY GARCIA, NICOLE KAMPHUIS, PAUL LUDVIGSON, TONIA MOON, SHANE M. WALLER, and DONNA LARSON, Defendants.
ADELMAN, United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Shane T. Robbins, who is incarcerated at Waupun
Correctional Institution (WCI), is representing himself. He
filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights. This matter comes before the court on
plaintiff’s petition to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee (in forma pauperis). He has been
assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $24.94.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
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, ” 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. § 1915A(b).
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 mere
“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 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 by 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)).
alleges that in about June 2015, the dentist at WCI, Dr.
Schettle, told plaintiff he had to remove gum tissue that was
too high over plaintiff’s lower teeth. Dr. Schettle
then “open my mouth and began to grind away at my gums
without any Novocain.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) Dr.
Schettle’s assistant asked, “What are you doing?
He hasn’t been numbed.” Id. Dr. Schettle
responded that plaintiff would be “fine, ” and
continued. Id. The procedure caused plaintiff great
unrelated allegations, plaintiff alleges that defendant Nurse
Nancy Garcia failed to properly treat him for his serious
testicle pain. She only orders higher doses of medication,
which does not give plaintiff relief. In addition, plaintiff
was not given a private cell so that he could apply warm
compresses to the area, which did help. Plaintiff alleges
that the members of the WCI’s Special Needs Committee,
consisting of defendants Ann Scarpita, Nicole Kamphuis, Paul
Ludvigson, Tonia Moon, Shane Waller, and Donna Laron, are
responsible for not giving plaintiff a private cell so that
he could treat his testicle pain.
appears to be a related claim, plaintiff alleges that he has
a bad back and requires a lower bunk bed. Defendants will not
give him a lower bunk bed restriction. He has trouble getting
into and out of the upper bunk, and he has fallen several
seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
on the court’s reading of the complaint, it appears
that plaintiff is attempting to improperly bring unrelated
claims in a single case. Under the controlling principle of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a), “[u]nrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different
suits” so as to prevent prisoners from dodging the fee
payment or three strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
Cir. 2007). “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim,
crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or
alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an
opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a). Under this rule,
“multiple claims against a single party are fine, but
Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”
George, 507 F.3d at 607. Moreover, joinder of
multiple defendants into one action is proper only if
“any right to relief is asserted against them ...