United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH A. BOHMAN, Plaintiff,
DR. BAYNTON, MS. DITTMAN, WARDEN, JANE DOES NURSES, SECURITY DIRECTOR, and NURSE N.P., Defendants.
Stadtmueller. U.S. District Judge
Joseph A. Bohman, who is incarcerated at Columbia
Correctional Institution, proceeds in this matter pro
se. He filed a complaint alleging that, while
incarcerated at Dodge Correctional Institution, the
defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Docket #1).
Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee on July 19, 2017.
case is currently assigned to Magistrate Judge William E.
Duffin. However, because not all parties have had the
opportunity to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the
case was randomly referred to this Court for the limited
purpose of screening the complaint. The case will be returned
to Magistrate Judge Duffin after entry of this order.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
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 any portion thereof 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.
Id. § 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 Atl. 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,
alleges that in September 2013, he had an appointment with
defendant Dr. Baynton (“Baynton”). (Docket #1 at
¶ 15). Plaintiff states that he told Baynton that his
stomach hurt, he had severe chest pain, he was feeling
bloated and constipated, he had trouble swallowing, he was
coughing up blood, and had blood in his urine and stool.
Id. at ¶¶ 16, 40. Plaintiff alleges that,
after doing the usual tests such as checking his blood
pressure, Baynton told Plaintiff he could not do much for him
and suggested Plaintiff buy some acid reflux medication from
the canteen. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 42.
asserts that he suffered these symptoms for three more
months, until December 15, 2013, when he was in so much pain
and was coughing up so much blood that he went back to health
services. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff saw Baynton
again and told him about his symptoms. Id. Baynton
sent Plaintiff to Waupun Memorial Hospital for immediate
treatment. Id. at ¶ 20.
states that a doctor at Waupun Memorial Hospital told him
that his condition was very serious and suggested that
Plaintiff be sent to the University of Wisconsin Hospital in
Madison. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff states that he
stayed at the University of Wisconsin Hospital for ten days
and lost twenty-five pounds. Id. at ¶ 24.
explains that he had a build-up of a bacteria called
“syndome” around his stomach and esophagus, which
caused muscle weakness. Id. at ¶ 26. As a
result, fluid and food were able to flow back into his
esophagus. Id. Left untreated, Plaintiff could
suffer severe consequences such as pain, bleeding, or trouble
swallowing. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the doctor
attributed Plaintiff's condition to his large consumption
of soy while incarcerated and ordered that Plaintiff be given
a special, no-soy diet. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.
states that, once he returned to Dodge Correctional, he was
initially given a no-soy diet tray, but eventually he began
to receive food containing soy. Id. at ¶ 29.
Plaintiff asserts that he started to experience the same
symptoms: coughing up blood, feeling bloated, and
constipation. Id. at ¶ 30. According to
Plaintiff, his doctor from the University of Wisconsin
Hospital then wrote a letter to health services, and
Plaintiff was given no-soy diet trays. Id. at ¶
32. Eventually, however, he once again began to receive food
containing soy. Id. at ¶ 33.
symptoms returned, so he contacted the health services
manager, defendant Beth Dittman (“Dittman”)
“many times” and asked her for help. Id.
at ¶¶ 35, 51. Plaintiff states that she did nothing
to help him. Id. Plaintiff also asserts that he saw
many nurses who, despite his severe symptoms, gave him
“the run around” before scheduling him to see
Baynton. Id. At ¶ 54. He also alleges that they
should have taken “matter[s] into their own
hand[s]” to get him help. Id. at ¶ 54.
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). There is no
supervisory liability, collective liability, or vicarious
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Pacelli v.
deVito, 972 F.2d 871, 878 (7th Cir. 1992). In other
words, supervisors are not liable for the errors of their
subordinates and individuals are not liable for the errors of
their co-workers. Id. With respect to any claim or
claims a plaintiff advances in his complaint, he must
identify the individual defendant and explain what that
individual did or did not do to violate his constitutional
the foregoing in mind, the Court will dismiss the Warden, the
Security Director, and Nurse N.P. as defendants. Plaintiff
alleges that these individuals had general responsibility for
inmates' health and safety, but he does not allege that
he had personal contact with them or that Plaintiff notified
them that he was not receiving adequate care. While he
generally asserts that, “The rest of the Defendant[s]
was apart of the matter and have full understanding and knew
of Plaintiff Serious Medical Condition and need for
Treatment, ” Plaintiff's complaint does ...