United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE
plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional
Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were
violated. This matter comes before the court on the
plaintiff's petition for leave to proceed without
prepaying the full filing fee.
is required to pay the $350.00 statutory filing fee for this
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If a
prisoner does not have the money to pay the filing fee, he
can request leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Weeks has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account
statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the
filing fee of his complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2), and has been assessed and paid an initial
partial filing fee of $2.03. In a letter to the court, Weeks
indicated that he has asked staff members at the institution
to pay his initial partial filing fee from his release
account, but has received no response. The court finds that
Weeks lacks the funds to pay the partial filing fee.
Therefore, the court waives the initial partial filing fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
court is required 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 or 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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex
rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997).
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, the plaintiff is required to 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 must contain sufficient factual matter “that
is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). The court accepts the factual allegations as true
and liberally construes them in the plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir.
2013). Nevertheless, the complaint's allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
alleges that, while he was in segregation, the defendants
damaged his televison set when they transported it to the
property department. As damages, he seeks the costs
associated with repairing the television and with bringing
this lawsuit. At most, Weeks' allegations advance a state
law negligent claim. The negligent conduct on the part of a
state official, however, is insufficient to state a
constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams,
474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (finding that “the Due Process
Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an
official causing unintended loss of or injury to life,
liberty or property.”). This court has no jurisdiction
over Weeks' state law claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Therefore, Week's state law claim will be
dismissed. Although Weeks is foreclosed from pursuing this
claim in federal court, Wisconsin law provides remedies to
individuals whose property has been damaged by another.
See Wis. Stat. §§ 893.35; 893.51.
September 15, 2017, Weeks filed a letter with the court
indicating that, as a result of filing the instant lawsuit,
he has been discriminated and retaliated against by prison
staff. ECF No. 12. Weeks' concerns, however, are
unrelated to the claim asserted in his complaint and do not
arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences as that claim. See George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If Weeks
believe he has grounds to assert a new claim, he may file a
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8)
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for
failure to state a federal claim.
IS ALSO ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document
that this inmate has incurred a "strike" under 28
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of
the prisoner shall collect from his institution trust account
the $350.00 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
payments from the plaintiff's prison trust account in an
amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income
credited to the prisoner's trust account and forwarding
payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the
case name and number assigned to this action. If the
plaintiff is transferred to another institution, the
transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order
along with plaintiff's remaining balance to the receiving
IS ALSO ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter