United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
(DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DKT.
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights at the Brown County
Jail. Dkt. No. 1. The case comes before the court on the
plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee and for screening of the plaintiff's
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case, because
the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint.
28 U.S.C. §1915. The law allows a court to give an
incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with his
lawsuit without pre-paying the civil case filing fee, as long
as he meets certain conditions. Id. One of those
conditions is a requirement that the plaintiff pay an initial
partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b). Once the
plaintiff pays the initial partial filing fee, the court may
allow the plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee
over time, through deductions from his prisoner account.
December 14, 2016, the court assessed an initial partial
filing fee of $67.23. Dkt. No. 7. The plaintiff paid that
amount on January 18, 2017. Therefore, the court will grant
the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filling fee, and will allow the plaintiff
to pay the balance of the $350.00 filing fee over time from
his prisoner account, as described at the end of this order.
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Standard for Screening Complaints
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to
this action because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he
filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The PLRA requires
courts to screen any complaint brought by inmates seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
court may dismiss a case, or part of it, if the claims
alleged are “frivolous or malicious, ” fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
state a 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 complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide “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)). “Labels and conclusions” 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
factual content of the complaint must allow the court to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Allegations must “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must state a
claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
courts follow the two-step analysis set put in
Twombly to determine whether a complaint states a
claim. Id. at 679. First, the court determines
whether the plaintiff's legal conclusions are supported
by factual allegations. Id. Legal conclusions not
support by facts “are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Id. Second, the court determines
whether the well-pleaded factual allegations “plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
The court gives 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, the
plaintiff must allege that the defendants: 1) deprived him of
a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States; and 2) acted under color of state law.
Buchanan- Moore v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 570
F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. of
N. Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004));
see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
plaintiff has Type 2 diabetes and is insulin-dependent. Dkt.
No. 1 at 3. He arrived at the Brown County Jail
(“BCJ”) sometime in March 2016, and since then,
he has “constantly” received expired insulin.
Id. He notified and warned BCJ medical ...