United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Demetric Scott, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is
representing himself, filed a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his
civil rights. This matter comes before the court on
Scott's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee (ECF No. 2) and for screening of the complaint
(ECF No. 1).
for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) allows
inmates to proceed with their lawsuits in federal court
without pre-paying the full case filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Inmates must comply with certain requirements, one of
which is to pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). The court assessed an initial partial filing
fee of $1.90. (ECF No. 5.) Scott paid that amount on February
22, 2017. Therefore, the court will grant Scott's motion
for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
of the Complaint
PLRA requires courts to screen complaints brought by inmates
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).
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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gib son, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). 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).
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that when
accepted as true “states a claim to relief 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's allegations “must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
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)).
factual allegations in the complaint involve three separate
time periods. (ECF No. 1 at 2-8.) The facts involving
Correctional Officer Meghan Rodriquez arise from Scott's
incarceration at the Waupun Correctional Institution
(“WCI”) in March 2014. (Id. at 2-5.) The
facts involving Probation Agent Spencer Siarnicki arise from
an “unlawful search” at Scott's residence in
May 2015. (Id. at 6.) And the facts involving the
third incident (no individual defendants are identified)
occurred at WCI in November and December 2016. (Id.
March 20, 2014, Rodriquez distributed medication at WCI.
(Id. at 2.) She tried to give Scott five
psychotropic pills. (Id.) Scott explained that he
usually only received three pills at bedtime and asked
Rodriguez to check his medication chart. (Id.) Scott
also told Rodriguez that his doctor would not change his
medication without examining him, and that a different
correctional officer, Tereance Lash (not a defendant), had
given him the wrong inmate's prescription in August 2013.
(Id. at 3.) Rodriquez stated “how and the fuck
should I know any of this, I just work here.”
(Id.) Scott took all of the medication that
Rodriquez gave him and within 45 minutes became violently
later reviewed his medical records and found numerous errors,
including failure to note the dosage he received and failure
to note whether he actually took his medication on a
particular day. (Id. at 4.) Scott alleges that
correctional officers should not be allowed to distribute
prescription medication, a task that ...