United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
MICHAEL J. FORD, Plaintiff,
CO RICE and CO WRIGHT, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S
JOSEPH United States Magistrate Judge.
a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself, filed
a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This
matter is before me on plaintiff's motion to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee (Docket # 2) and for
screening of his complaint (Docket # 1).
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEE
Prison Litigation Reform Act gives courts discretion to allow
prisoners to proceed with their lawsuits without prepaying
the $350 filing fee, as long as they comply with certain
requirements. 28 U.S.C. §1915. One of those requirements
is that the prisoner pay an initial partial filing fee. On
January 11, 2017, I ordered plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $3.14. Plaintiff paid that fee on
January 23, 2017. As such, I will grant plaintiff's
motion to proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee;
he must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time as set
forth at the end of this order.
OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
law requires that I 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).
I must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner
has raised 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).
state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
proceed 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
defendant was 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). I will
give a pro se plaintiff's 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,
IN THE COMPLAINT
alleges that on September 22, 2016, he received a memorandum
informing him that he was being placed on a “Keep on
Person” (KOP) medication restriction as a safety
precaution because he had overdosed on his medication earlier
that month. The next day, defendant CO Wright distributed
medication to plaintiff even though he knew plaintiff was
prohibited from possessing the medication because of his
October 8, 2016, plaintiff began to feel suicidal. He
contacted the sergeant station via his emergency call button
and informed the sergeant (who is not named as a defendant)
that he was going to take the pills he had been given by
staff. Defendant CO Rice approached plaintiff's cell,
and, through the cell window, plaintiff showed Rice the
twenty pills Wright had given him. According to plaintiff,
Rice asked “What are you doing?” and then stood
and watched as plaintiff ingested all of the pills.
was rushed to the hospital where he received treatment.
Plaintiff alleges that the medication ate through the lining
of his stomach and that, as a result, he has to be on
state an Eighth Amendment claim based on deficient medical
care, a plaintiff must demonstrate two elements: 1) an
objectively serious medical or mental health condition; and
2) an official's deliberate indifference to that
condition. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th
Cir. 2011) (citing Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579,
584 (7th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Wright
demonstrated deliberate indifference when he provided him
with medication despite knowing that plaintiff had recently
overdosed and was prohibited from possessing medication.
Plaintiff also alleges that Rice demonstrated deliberate
indifference when he failed to ...