United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller, S. U.S. District Judge
March 31, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's original
complaint. (Docket #15). The Court permitted Plaintiff to
proceed on claims of deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs and excessive force, both in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Id. at 4-5. On May 8, 2017, the
Court entered a scheduling order in this matter and afforded
Plaintiff until June 1, 2017, to file an amended complaint if
he chose to do so. (Docket #28). Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on May 11, 2017, (Docket #33), and the Court now
turns to screening that amended complaint.
noted in the first 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court
must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the prisoner
has raised claims that are “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. Id. § 1915A(b). All of
the standards cited in the first screening order remain
applicable here. (Docket #15 at 1-3).
amended complaint is largely identical to his original
complaint. Put briefly, Plaintiff alleges in his amended
complaint that Dr. Castillo took him off of his psychological
medications without reason. (Docket #33 at 2). Plaintiff says
he had mentioned to the doctor that he was worried about
developing gynecomastia as a side effect of one of the
medications, Risperdone, but Plaintiff seems to think that he
was only expressing concern, not asking for the medication to
be discontinued. See Id. Further, although he
continually asked for his medications from numerous
correctional officers, including Unit Manager Ms. Wiegards,
they consistently refused and poked fun at him for his
psychological conditions. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff asserts that correctional officer Ronald J. Edwards
(“Edwards”) and other unnamed officers assaulted
him on September 28, 2016,  by dragging him forcefully, and
without justification, to segregation. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff claims he suffered physical and emotional injuries
from this incident. Id. Further, Plaintiff contends
that he has been denied appropriate mental health treatment
by Dr. Baas, who is ostensibly an employee of the
prison's psychological services department, and other
unnamed individuals. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that has been thrown in segregation,
gassed, and stripped naked. Id. Additionally, while
in segregation, prison officials took his mattress and left
his cell cold enough to “freeze” him.
Id. Plaintiff states that these conditions have
caused him both physical and psychological harm. Id.
For relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court order: (1) that
he be placed back on his prior psychotropic medications; (2)
that his mental health conditions be properly documented in
his prison records; (3) that he receive help setting up a
bank account; (4) that he be housed in the prison
“special needs unit”; and (5) that he be provided
surgery to remedy his gynecomastia. Id. at 5.
Court's reasoning in its earlier screening order controls
the screening of Plaintiff's amended complaint. First, as
the Court has already found, Plaintiff may proceed on an
Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs against Dr. Castillo for taking him off
of his psychological medications for no reason. See Glick
v. Walker, 272 F.App'x 514, 519-20 (7th Cir. 2008).
Second, Plaintiff states a deliberate indifference claim
against Dr. Baas for denying him mental health treatment
despite his alleged psychological disorders. Id.
Third, Plaintiff may proceed against Edwards for a claim of
excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for
the September 28, 2016 incident. See Gomez v.
Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 2012). Finally, as
the Court already warned Plaintiff, he cannot proceed on
allegations for which he names no defendant personally
responsible for the conduct at issue. See (Docket
#15 at 5); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740
(7th Cir. 2001). These include his allegations related to the
conditions of his confinement in segregation, the allegations
that other unnamed guards helped Edwards beat him, and the
allegations that other individuals in the psychological
services department in addition to Dr. Baas denied him mental
reasons stated above, the Court will permit Plaintiff to
proceed on the following claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment
claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
against Dr. Castillo for taking him off of his psychological
medications without cause; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against
Dr. Baas for denying him mental health treatment despite his
psychological conditions; and (3) an Eighth Amendment claim
of excessive force against Edwards for the September 28, 2016
Court closes by briefly addressing several other motions
Plaintiff filed along with his amended complaint. First,
Plaintiff submitted what is now his sixth motion requesting
the appointment of counsel. (Docket #29). The Court explained
only a few days ago that Plaintiff is not entitled to
appointed counsel at this time. (Docket #27). Plaintiff
offers no new evidence or argument undermining that
conclusion beyond unsworn statements about his attempts to
secure counsel and about his purported mental conditions.
See (Docket #29, #30, #31, #35). These sorts of
representations are insufficient to warrant the present
appointment of counsel. See (Docket #27 at 2-3). The
motion must, therefore, be denied.
the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to subpoena video
surveillance footage of the September 28, 2016 incident.
(Docket #32). First, to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court
itself to request evidence from Defendants on his behalf, it
cannot; the Court does not participate directly in the
discovery process in civil litigation. Second, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court compelling Defendants
to produce these items, his motion is premature. Before
seeking Court intervention into discovery matters, Plaintiff
must first serve discovery requests on Defendants consistent
with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. If Defendants do not appropriately respond to
Plaintiff's discovery requests, Plaintiff must then make
good-faith efforts to confer with Defendants' counsel to
resolve the matter without involving the Court. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Civ. L. R. 37. If those efforts
fail, then and only then may Plaintiff file a motion to
compel discovery responses with the Court. See Ross v.
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., No. 08-CV-230,
2008 WL 5129941, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2008); Williams
v. Frank, No. 06C1051, 2007 WL 1217358, at *1 (E.D. Wis.
Apr. 19, 2007).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint (Docket
#33) shall be the operative complaint in this action;
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment
of counsel (Docket #29) be and the same is hereby DENIED
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to subpoena video
footage (Docket #32) be and the same is hereby DENIED;
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #34) be and ...