United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
RONALD L. GRISLE, JR., Plaintiff,
C. JESS, QUALA CHAMPAGNE, ANN KRUEGER, M. GREENWOOD, G. DAVIS, and E. DAVIDSON, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, an inmate at Kenosha Correctional Center who is
representing himself, filed a complaint alleging that the
defendant had denied him his right to a hearing before the
Program Review Committee. Dkt. No. 1. He also filed a motion,
asking the court to allow him to proceed without prepaying
the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
case originally was assigned to Magistrate Judge Nancy
Joseph. The defendants have not been served, and so have not
had the opportunity to consent to magistrate judge
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the clerk's office randomly
reassigned the case to a United States district court
judge-Judge Pepper-to screen the complaint.
decision resolves the plaintiff's motion to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee, screens the complaint and
dismisses the case.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The PLRA allows a court to
give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with
his lawsuit without prepaying the case filing fee, as long as
he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is that
the plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). On July 5, 2017, Judge Joseph ordered the
plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $9.35. Dkt.
No. 6. The plaintiff paid the initial partial filing fee on
July 24, 2017. Accordingly, the court will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. The court will order the plaintiff to pay the
remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained
at the end of this decision.
Screening the Plaintiff's Complaint
requires the court 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 if the plaintiff raises
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 claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
proceed 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
defendant was 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 gives a pro se plaintiff's 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,
The Plaintiff's Allegations
plaintiff alleges that, under the Department of
Corrections' policies and procedures, inmates are
entitled to participate in “recall” hearings,
which are held before the Program Review Committee (PRC).
Dkt. No. 1 at 4. (The court assumes that the plaintiff is
referring to program review hearings; among other things,
program review hearings allow prison staff to assess an
inmate's custody classification and his motivation to
become involved in treatment and programs. See
Wis.Stat. DOC 302.14-17.)
plaintiff asserts that in October 2016, the PRC approved him
for minimum security status. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. As a result, he
was transferred to the Kenosha Correctional Center (KCC) a
month later. Id. He alleges that the PRC set a
recall hearing for February 1, 2017. Id.
plaintiff asserts that defendant Quala Champagne (the warden
of the Wisconsin Correctional Center System) informed him
that defendant Ann Krueger (the KCC Superintendent) held a
recall hearing on February 10, 2017. Id. According
to the plaintiff, despite DOC policy, he was not invited to
participate in the recall hearing. Id. The plaintiff
explains that he ...