United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
STADTMUELLER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
March 10, 2017, the Court screened the plaintiff's
original complaint. (Docket #9). The Court found that the
plaintiff had not stated any viable claims for relief.
Id. at 6. The Court required the plaintiff to file
an amended complaint no later than March 31, 2017.
Id. On March 20, 2017, the plaintiff submitted an
amended complaint. (Docket #10).
noted in its March 10, 2017 screening order, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. See (Docket #9 at
1); 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,
” 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). The same
standards cited in the original screening order apply here.
(Docket #9 at 1-3).
amended complaint states that the plaintiff has
“segures, ” which he describes as a
“serious medical condition that can cause brain
damage[.]” (Docket #10 at 1). The plaintiff then
relates the same series of events as his original complaint
regarding falling on spilled juice at the Racine County Jail
(the “Jail”). Id. In sum, he alleges
that Officer Carbonara knew of some juice on the floor and
did not clean it, he slipped on the spill, and injured his
head and torso. Id. He claims to have severe back
pain as a result of the fall. Id.
called for help, which was offered by Officers Carbonara and
Laux and Nurse Kathy. Id. at 3. Nurse Kathy took the
plaintiff's blood pressure and heart rate. Id.
She then attempted to move the plaintiff, but he stated that
he could not move because of the extreme pain. Id.
Eventually, the correctional staff “forcefully put [the
plaintiff] in a wheel chair” and took him to an
observation cell. Id. Nurse Kathy checked his vital
signs again and said she would be back to check on him, but
never returned. Id. at 4. The plaintiff alleges that
Nurse Kathy knew of his “segures” condition, and
he implies that her care was not appropriate. Id.
Finally, the plaintiff alleges that two hours after the
incident, he asked for medical attention from Nurse Teloh but
she refused to see him. Id. The plaintiff closes by
stating that the defendants' conduct “shows
deliberate indifference, reckless conduct, negligence, Malice
Misconduct, Medical deliberate indifference etc. 8th
[A]mendment.” Id. at 5.
plaintiff still fails to state any viable claim for relief.
As discussed in the initial screening order, the Seventh
Circuit generally does not impose liability for slip-and-fall
claims in prison. (Docket #9 at 4); Pyles v. Fahim,
771 F.3d 403, 410, n.25 (7th Cir. 2014); Bell, 88
Fed.Appx. at 127. To obtain liability, the situation must
present a substantial risk of serious injury. Bell v.
Ward, 88 Fed.Appx. 125, 127 (7th Cir. 2004). As
Bell noted, “[a]lthough wet floors do present
a possibility that inmates might slip, Bell's allegations
do not suggest a substantial risk of serious harm that
reflects the deliberate indifference required to impose
liability under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at
127. Similarly, the plaintiff's allegations do not show
that Officer Carbonara disregarded a substantial risk of
serious harm by failing to clean up the juice spill. The
officer had no reason to believe it posed a serious
risk of harm to anyone. This is true even assuming she knew
of the plaintiff's condition; though he claims to have
suffered extreme pain, he never alleges that the fall
exacerbated, or even had the potential to exacerbate, his
“segures” condition. Again, a typical negligence
claim such as this does not automatically become a
constitutional injury just because it occurs in a prison.
See (Docket #9 at 4); Watkins v. Lancor,
558 Fed.Appx. 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2014).
plaintiff also fails to state a claim for deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. It is important to
consider the medical need at issue here. It is not the
plaintiff's “segures” condition, whose onset
apparently pre-dated the fall. The condition is, instead, the
pain in his head and torso caused by the fall itself. As the
Court noted in the initial screening order, it is not clear
whether pain from a fall could be considered a “serious
medical condition” if the fall itself was not
actionable. (Docket #9 at 5). Even assuming the pain was
sufficiently serious, no one was indifferent to it. The
plaintiff received immediate medical attention after the
fall. Further, the complaint does not allege that the pain
continued beyond the day of the fall. The plaintiff's
apparent desire for more or different treatment is
“mere disagreement with the course of [his] medical
treatment” which cannot sustain a deliberate
indifference claim. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,
591 (7th Cir. 1996). If the plaintiff has general concerns
about the medical attention he receives for his
“segures” condition, those cannot be the basis of
the plaintiff has failed to present any viable causes of
action after being given an opportunity to amend his
complaint, this action must now be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this
inmate has brought an action that was dismissed for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this
inmate has incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be sent to the
warden of the institution where the inmate is confined; and
COURT FURTHER CERTIFIES that any appeal from this matter
would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff ...