Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Pollard

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 19, 2017

DEMETRIC SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM J. POLLARD and MEGHAN RODRIQUEZ, Defendants.

          ORDER

          J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge.

         This 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.

         1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint

         Scott 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.

         2. Screening of the Amended Complaint

         The 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).

         To 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).

         The 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).

         Federal 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)).

         2.1 Factual Allegations

         Scott 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).

         On 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.

         The 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.

         Scott 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.