United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
Nathaniel Robinson, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is
representing himself, filed a complaint alleging that
defendants violated his civil rights. This case is currently
assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge David E. Jones; however,
because not all parties have had the opportunity to consent
to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was randomly
referred to a U.S. District Court judge for the limited
purpose of screening the complaint. This case will be
returned to Judge Jones following the entry of this Order.
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to
proceed without prepayment of the civil case filing fee (ECF
No. 2) and for the screening of his complaint (ECF No. 1).
to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. The PLRA gives courts discretion to allow
prisoners to proceed with their lawsuits without prepaying
the $350 filing fee, as long as they comply with certain
requirements. 28 U.S.C. §1915. One of those requirements
is that the prisoner pay an initial partial filing fee. On
March 14, 2017, Judge Jones assessed an initial partial
filing fee of $37.62. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff paid that fee on
March 24, 2017. The Court will grant plaintiff's motion
to proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee. He is
required to pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in
the manner explained at the end of this Order.
of the Complaint
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).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, a 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). To 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 the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
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 her by a person or
persons acting 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). The Court is obliged to give a
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)).
in the Complain
alleges that, while incarcerated at the Milwaukee Secure
Detention Facility (MSDF), he complained of severe stomach
pain. In December 2014, defendant Dr. Kevin Krembs, a
physician employed by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
and assigned to MSDF, referred plaintiff to the
“University of Wisconsin Oncology.” (ECF No. 1 at
3.) During his follow-up consultation with plaintiff, Dr.
Krembs informed plaintiff that he had terminal cancer.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Krembs said he was
“confident in his medical opinion.”
Krembs asked defendant Tina Watts, the MSDF health services
manager, to join the consultation. According to plaintiff,
Watts expressed her condolences. She informed plaintiff that
chemotherapy and radiation were an option, but they offered
only “a glimmer of hope.” (Id.) Dr.
Krembs agreed that they could be “helpful” but
that they “would only prolong the inevitable at
best.” (Id.) Watts told plaintiff that she
would “personally champion his cause with respect to
gaining a compassionate release because it was not her desire
to see him anguish and waste away in prison.”
(Id.) Dr. Krembs informed plaintiff that he did not
need to worry about suffering because he would provide him
with “the best pain mediation known to man.”
(Id.) Dr. Krembs prescribed several medications,
including Hydrocodone and Oxycontin.
or so later, plaintiff met with Dr. Krembs and received a
full examination, including a rectal examination. Dr. Krembs
informed plaintiff that he continued to feel severe pain
because of his sitting bones. Dr. Krembs allegedly told
plaintiff that he was afraid plaintiff might also have bone
days later, plaintiff again met with Dr. Krembs and Watts.
Watts allegedly told him that she would begin the
compassionate release process after a biopsy was completed.
Dr. Krembs informed plaintiff that he would begin receiving
Morphine. According to plaintiff, Watts asked Dr. Krembs if
Morphine was appropriate given that plaintiff had been unable
to defecate and was in severe pain as a result. Dr. Krembs
allegedly stated that plaintiff's bowel complications
were related to his cancer.
the end of December 2014, plaintiff was sent to St.
Luke's Hospital for a biopsy. Plaintiff states that the
biopsy was unsuccessful because the target area was never
reached. Plaintiff states that ...