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.

Mohamed v. Isacc

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 10, 2017

MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED, Plaintiff,
v.
CO ISACC and CO HAYNES, 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 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainee who is representing himself, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights while he was detained at the “Kenosha County Sheriff Detentions.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. This order resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and screens the complaint.

         I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

         A district court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if the plaintiff submits an affidavit setting forth the assets he possesses, swears that he is unable to pay the fees, and states that he is entitled to redress. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). The plaintiff filed such an affidavit on October 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 2. He states that he a Somalian citizen, dkt. no. 1 at 1, is unemployed, has no property or assets, and has no money in his checking account, dkt. no. 2. Based on the plaintiff's affidavit, the court is satisfied that he meets the requirements for proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.

         II. SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

         A. Standard for Screening Complaints

         The 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 it, 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, 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 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. 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)).

         B. Facts Alleged in the Proposed Complaint

         The plaintiff currently is detained at the Pulaski County Jail in Ullin, Illinois. (The clerk's office learned of this when it sent the plaintiff a notice at the Kenosha facility, and it was returned with a notation that he was not in custody.) The events in the complaint occurred while the plaintiff was detained at the Kenosha County Detention Center. Dkt. No. 1 at 2.

         On September 10, 2016, the plaintiff attempted to file a “sick call form” during second shift. Id. Correctional Officer Haynes refused to take the form, and accused the plaintiff of possessing a pen. Id. Haynes then searched the plaintiff's cell to look for the pen, because (according to the plaintiff) Hayes “wanted to retaliate against [the plaintiff] and violate [the plaintiff's] rights.” Id.

         The plaintiff asked to speak to a supervisor; that request “was denied, ” although the plaintiff doesn't say by whom. Id. The plaintiff “took further measures” to get a supervisor's attention, but he still cooperated when Haynes and Correctional Officer Isacc told him to “cuff up.” Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff alleges that Hayes and Isacc “deliberately restrained” him while they searched his cell for the pen. Id. at 3. Haynes and Isacc threw the plaintiff on the ground and twisted his hand. I ...


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.