United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 28)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on April 7, 2017.
Dkt. No. 28. The court must 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). 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)).
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).
Allegations in the Complaint
third amended complaint is thirteen pages long, and contains
allegations that span almost six years and three different
prisons. Dkt. No. 28.
plaintiff begins by discussing a conduct report that he
received, which resulted in a hearing in January 2011 at the
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). Id. at 2.
He alleges that defendant Brown wrote and investigated this
report. Id. at 3. He maintains that all conduct
reports must be designated by the security director as either
a major or a minor offense, and says that if the conduct
report doesn't contain such a designation, the WSPF lacks
the “jurisdictional authorities” to process the
report. Id. The plaintiff alleges that a Captain
Gardner (not a defendant) did not “check the type of
hearing procedure.” Id. The plaintiff also
asserts that following the hearing, he was placed in
administrative segregation, while similarly situated
non-black inmates were placed on temporary lockup status
pending a decision on their conduct reports. Id. The
plaintiff suggests that he received this treatment because he
had filed multiple complaints against defendant Brown, and
asserts that more than half of the staff at WSPF are under
Brown's influence. Id. at 3.
plaintiff's “claim #2, ” “claim #3,
” and “claim #4” relate to property deemed
contraband and destroyed by defendant Phillip Friedrich.
Id. at 3-11. In claim #2, the plaintiff asserts that
Friedrich seized his legal papers as contraband after Brown
wrote the conduct report. Id. at 3-4. He claims that
Friedrich seized the documents to prevent the plaintiff from
filing inmate complaints and taking legal action.
Id. at 5.
claim #3, the plaintiff alleges that in May 2012, he was
transferred out of WSPF to Columbia Correctional Institution,
and that Friedrich “packed out” his property.
Id. at 6. The plaintiff alleges that when he got to
CCI, property was missing, and although he followed the
procedures CCI staff told him to follow, his property was
“gone.” Id. at 7.
claim #4, the plaintiff turns his attention back to his time
at WSDF, and alleges that the facility's failure to
follow Wisconsin law, and Friedrich's destruction of his
legal papers, damaged his ability to present appeals, as well
as his marriage and family support system. Id. at
8-10. He says that he was denied access to the courts because
of this. Id. at 10.
plaintiff's final claim alleges that defendant Olsen
denied the plaintiff legal loans and withheld legal mail at
New Lisbon Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 28 at 11-13.
According to the plaintiff, Olsen delayed the plaintiff's
outgoing mail a number of times in 2016 and 2017.
Failure to Mark Conduct Report as Minor or Major;
Placement in Segregation
plaintiff's first claim asserts that Captain Gardner
didn't designate the conduct report that Brown wrote as
either “minor” or “major, ” and thus
that the WSDF didn't have the authority to process that
conduct report. This claim does not assert a constitutional
violation, and the plaintiff did not name Gardner as a
defendant. The court will not allow the plaintiff to proceed
on this claim.
plaintiff also asserts that he “was placed” in
segregation, while non-black inmates were placed in temporary
lock-up status. He implies a discrimination claim, but the
plaintiff does not say who placed him in ...