United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
SCREENING THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(DKT. NOS. 3, 11)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
Paul Allen Adams, who is representing himself, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated. Dkt. No. 1. The
plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and two motions
asking the court to recruit counsel to represent him, dkt.
nos. 3, 11. This order resolves the plaintiff's motions
and screens his complaint.
case currently is assigned to Magistrate Judge Duffin. The
defendants, however, have not had the opportunity to consent
to the magistrate judge presiding over the case. For this
reason, the clerk's office has referred the case to
United States District Judge Pamela Pepper for the limited
purpose of screening the complaint. The clerk's office
will return the case to Magistrate Judge Duffin after entry
of this order.
for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act gives courts discretion to allow
prisoners to proceed with their lawsuits without prepaying
the $350 filing fee, as long as they comply with certain
requirements. 28 U.S.C. §1915. One of those requirements
is that they pay an initial partial filing fee. On May 25,
2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $2.49. The plaintiff paid that fee on
June 7, 2017. Accordingly, the court will grant his motion to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The plaintiff
must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the
manner explained at the end of this order.
of the Complaint
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
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 part of it, 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). To state a cognizable claim under the federal
notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
[he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a
plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or
persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore
v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir.
2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North Fond du
Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
court is obliged to give the plaintiff's 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)).
plaintiff alleges that about six months after he arrived at
Fox Lake Correctional Institution, he began to have diarrhea
about seven times per day. He experienced severe pain and
bleeding during his bowel movements and lost his ability to
control them. The plaintiff states that he wrote to Health
Services several times per week, begging for help and
services. After about two years, a nurse practitioner finally
examined him, and referred him to a specialist, but it was
another six months before the specialist actually saw him.
The plaintiff has had two surgeries, but states that he is
still in pain. The plaintiff alleges that he filed more than
two hundred requests to Health Services and complained to
defendant Warden Randall Hepp (as well as other individuals
who the plaintiff did not name as defendants), but was
1983 “creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not
attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated
in a constitutional violation.” Vance v.
Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Sheik-Abdi v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 1240, 1248 (7th
Cir. 1994)). In other words, because §1983 makes public
employees liable “for their own misdeeds but not for
anyone else's, ” Burks v. Raemisch, 555
F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir.2009), a plaintiff must specify in his
allegations what each individual defendant did (or did not
do) to violate his constitutional rights.
the plaintiff named Dr. Larson and Candi Whitman as
defendants in the caption of his complaint, he did not
mention them anywhere in his description of what happened to
him. The plaintiff has not alleged any misconduct on ...