Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Racine Correctional Institution

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 9, 2017

DEBRADRE D. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
RACINE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SGT. CORRAO, CO. SAIRS, A. LARSON, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING THE COMPLAINT.

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights at the Racine Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 1. This order resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and screens the plaintiff's complaint.

         I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this action because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The 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. Id. 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.

         On November 1, 2016, the court assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.43. Dkt. No. 5. The plaintiff made payment in the amount of $2.00 on November 9, 2016. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filling fee and will allow the plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350.00 filing fee over time from his prisoner account, as described at the end of this order.

         II. SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

         A. Standard for Screening Complaints

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts 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 may dismiss an action or portion thereof 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).

         To 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). 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 Atl. 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 555).

         The 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.

         Federal courts follow the two-step analysis set forth in Twombly to determine whether a complaint states a claim. Id. at 679. First, the court determines whether the plaintiff's legal conclusions are supported by factual allegations. Id. Legal conclusions not supported 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)).

         B. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

         On October 2, 2016, the plaintiff was having a seizure, and he told his cellmate (Michael Cunningham) to notify staff that he needed medical attention. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Cunningham left the cell and loudly stated that the plaintiff was having a seizure. Id. Correctional Officer Sairs responded to the call and entered the room. Id. Sairs confirmed to Sergeant Corrao that the plaintiff was suffering a seizure. Id.

         Corrao entered the plaintiff's cell and found the plaintiff on the floor. Id. Corrao also noticed some contraband in the plaintiff's cell. Id. Instead of contacting the Health Services Unit (“HSU”) regarding the plaintiff's seizure, Corrao left the plaintiff on the floor, and radioed security to take the plaintiff to segregation to be locked up. Id. at 3. The plaintiff continued to ask for medical attention while in segregation, but indicates that he did not receive medical care until twenty-four hours later. Id. The plaintiff says that during the seizure, he fell and hit the back of his head on the cell wall, which caused “swelling and a knot at the back of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.