United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge.
matter comes before the court on plaintiff Demetric
Scott's (“Scott”) second motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Docket #14),
motion to appoint counsel, (Docket #16), motion to
amend/correct the complaint, (Docket #17), and for screening
of the amended complaint, (Docket #13). The court granted
Scott's first motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee on March 24, 2017. (Docket #10).
Therefore, it will deny as moot Scott's second motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct the
asks to amend/correct his complaint to include Meghan
Rodriquez as a defendant. Scott listed Rodriquez as a
defendant in his original complaint, (Docket #1), but omitted
her from the caption in the Amended Complaint. The body of
the Amended Complaint, (Docket #13), includes facts and
allegations against Rodriquez and states a claim against her
(as discussed below). Therefore, the court will grant
plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the complaint.
Screening of the Amended Complaint
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen
complaints brought by inmates 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 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 but must provide “fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 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, “state 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)).
is an inmate at the Waupun Correctional Institution
(“Waupun”). (Docket #13). Meghan Rodriquez
(“Rodriquez”) is a Correctional Officer at Waupun
and William Pollard (“Pollard”) is Warden at
Waupun. (Docket #13 at 2-3).
March 20, 2014, Rodriquez distributed bedtime medication at
around 8:50 p.m. Id. at 3. Rodriquez tried to give
Scott five pills. Id. Scott explained that he only
was to receive three pills at bedtime (Mirtazapine,
Divalproex, and Risperidole) and asked Rodriquez to check the
dosage on his medication chart. Id. Scott also told
her that his doctor would not change his medication without
examining him, and he had received incorrect medication once
before, in August 2013, which had caused him to vomit within
30 minutes. Id. Rodriquez responded “how and
the fuck should I know any of this, I just work here.”
Id. Scott took all five pills that Rodriquez gave
him, and within 45 minutes, he was vomiting all over his bed,
floor, and toilet. Id. Around 10:20 p.m., “3rd
shift” saw that Scott was sick and immediately called
medical personnel. Id.
next day, on March 21, 2014, Scott went to the Health
Services Unit for an appointment with Nurse Larson (not a
defendant). Id. After Scott told Larson what
happened, Larson suspected that Rodriquez had given him the
wrong inmate's medication. Id. Larson made this
statement in the presence of Correctional Officer Gorman
(also not a defendant). Id.
explains that he has found numerous errors in his medical
records in the past. Id. Examples include failure to
note the dosage he received on a particular day and failure
to note whether or not he actually took his medication that
day. Id. In some cases, the entries simply stated
“R, ” which ...