United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
Monchello Cornell Louis, who is confined at the Milwaukee
County Jail, is representing himself. He filed a complaint
alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights. The plaintiff filed a petition to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. §1915(b),
dkt. no. 2. The court also must screen the plaintiff's
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
plaintiff has paid an initial partial filing fee of $11.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court will grant his
motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and
direct collection of the rest of the filing fee, as explained
at the end of this order.
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.
of Review for Screening Complaint
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts 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 the complaint, 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).
state a cognizable 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 plaintiff need not
plead specific facts, and his statement need only "give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic 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, " however, 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). To state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, "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).
considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should
follow the principles set forth in Twombly by,
first, "identifying pleadings that, because they are no
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The party must
support legal conclusions by factual allegations.
Id. Second, if there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, the court must "assume their veracity and
then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief." Id.
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). The 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)).
Allegations in the Complaint
the time of the events the plaintiff describes in the
complaint, he was confined at the Milwaukee County Jail. He
is suing Deputy Toliver, Nurse Kirk, the Milwaukee County
Jail, and the CJF Med Clinic.
plaintiff alleges that on November 29, 2016, Deputy Toliver
intentionally and maliciously slammed a cell door onto his
foot, which caused his skin to break and "bleed
profusely." Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Nurse Kirk was passing by
the plaintiff's cell at the time of the incident. The
plaintiff and other inmates requested that she come to his
cell. She did, and when she started to attempt to clean the
blood from the plaintiff's foot, he told her that he
"can do that part." Id. at 3. Nurse Kirk
then told the plaintiff that the jail's "Med
Clinic" would call him. Nine hours later, Lieutenant Haw
(not a defendant) came to the unit and requested that the
plaintiff be seen immediately. The plaintiff was seen
immediately. A nurse at the Med Clinic treated the
plaintiff's injury with antibiotic ointment, wrapped it,
and prescribed him Ibuprofen for five days. This helped the
plaintiff "minimally, " because he still had pain
due to a preexisting ankle sprain "and now a big toe
plaintiff asks for monetary damages from the Milwaukee County
Jail, Deputy Toliver, and the Medical Clinic. He also asks
that jail staff be trained on proper protocol when dealing
with these ...