United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM T. ANTEPENKO, JR., Plaintiff,
DR. DOMROIS, RICHARD BUBOLZ, LEE BECHER, DANIELLE FOSTER, DAWN FOFANA, and M. LEE, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
(DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. Under that law, the court
must screen the plaintiff's complaint to determine
whether the plaintiff states claims with which he may
proceed. In addition to filing a complaint, the plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. This decision screens the complaint
and resolves the plaintiff's motion.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of 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 must pay an initial
partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b).
September 12, 2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $7.52 by October 2, 2017. Dkt.
No. 6. The plaintiff paid the fee on September 27, 2017. The
court will grant the plaintiff's motion to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee, and will order the
plaintiff to pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in
the manner 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 North
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 explains that his dentures do not fit properly.
Dkt. No. 1 at 4. As a result, they sometimes fall out of his
mouth while he's talking, cause pain and sore spots, and
prevent him from eating certain foods. Id. at 4-5.
He states that he needs a soft liner and Fixodent to help
them stay in his mouth, but that he cannot afford to buy
Fixodent at the canteen. Id. at 4.
to the plaintiff, he has informed defendant Dr. Domrois on
numerous occasions that his dentures do not fit. Id.
Domrois allegedly has tried two times to fix the dentures,
which were made for the plaintiff by an outside provider, but
the dentures still do not fit. Id. The plaintiff
states that Domrois refuses to get new dentures for the
plaintiff; he has told the plaintiff that the problem is with
his gum line. Id. at 4-5.
plaintiff also states that Domrois will not provide him with
a prescription for Fixodent to help the dentures fit better.
Id. Domrois allegedly told the plaintiff that he
could apply for a medical loan, but the health services staff
told the plaintiff that he could not use a medical loan to
buy Fixodent. Id. Regardless, it appears that the
plaintiff no longer wishes to use Fixodent to help his
dentures fit better; he explains that he recently learned
that excessive use of Fixodent, which contains Zinc, can lead
to serious health problems. Id. at 5-6.
plaintiff filed an inmate complaint, which was investigated
by defendant Richard Bubolz. Id. at 3-4. Bubolz
reviewed the plaintiff's banking information and spoke to
defendants Danielle Foster, Dawn Fofana and M. Lee.
Id. at 4. According to the plaintiff, in deciding to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, Bubolz concluded,
“This office has no reason to believe the care,
treatment, and ...