United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DE'VON L. WALKER, Plaintiff,
PAUL LUDVIGSON, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
(DKT. NO. 4) AND SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §983, dkt.
no. 1, along with a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2. This order resolves
that motion and screens the plaintiff's complaint.
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.
November 30, 2016, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $4.83 on or before December 23,
2016. Dkt. No. 6. The plaintiff failed to pay the fee on
time, and on January 6, 2017, the court entered an order to
show cause. Dkt. No. 7. The court received the initial
partial filing fee on January 9, 2017. The court will grant
the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, and will require the plaintiff
to pay the remainder of the filing fee over time as 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 N. 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's claims relate to two documented suicide
attempts by the plaintiff and the way that staff members
handled them, both before and after the attempts. Dkt. No. 1
First Suicide Attempt
November 5, 2014, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the plaintiff
got the attention of defendant Derek Dekeyser, the range
officer on the plaintiff's segregation unit. Id.
The plaintiff told Dekeyser that he was depressed and
suicidal and was having suicidal thoughts. Id. at
5-6. Dekeyser said he would get the plaintiff some help.
Id. at 6. Dekeyser returned to the plaintiff's
cell about an hour later with defendant correctional officer
Randy Gerritson, defendant supervising officer Kyle Tritt,
and defendant psychological associate Paul Ludvigson.
Id. at 6-7. The group spoke to the plaintiff for
several minutes, and the plaintiff told them all that he was
suicidal and having suicidal thoughts. Id. at 7. The
group debated, and ultimately concurred in a decision that
the plaintiff could stay in his current cell and that he did
not need further treatment at that time. Id.
approximately 4:30 p.m., the plaintiff intentionally consumed
over sixty pills, including acetaminophen and ibuprofen.
Id. The plaintiff continued to take pills for more
than an hour, and ultimately ingested more than eighty pills.
Id. Sometime after 6:00 p.m., the plaintiff became
extremely ill; he was vomiting profusely. Id. When
Dekeyser made a wellness check, he noticed the
plaintiff's condition, and asked the plaintiff what was
wrong. Id. The plaintiff told Dekeyser that he had
ingested more than eighty pills. Id. The plaintiff
also told Dekeyser that he had swallowed a screw and multiple
staples. Id. Dekeyser radioed for assistance, and
Gerritson and Tritt came to the plaintiff's cell a couple
of minutes later. Id. They placed the plaintiff in
restraints and took him to the restrictive housing unit for a
medical evaluation and eventual psychological evaluation.
the plaintiff arrived at the restrictive housing unit, he was
strip searched, placed in a smock and placed in mechanical
restraints. Id. He was taken to the nurse's
station, with his wrists handcuffed behind his back and
shackles on both ankles, to be medically evaluated.
Id. Defendant ...