United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING THE PLAINTIFF'S
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the defendants
violated her constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1. The case is
before the court for an initial review of the complaint, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C.
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).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that: 1) she 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).
plaintiff has sued corrections officer Katherine M. Rekau, as
well as a number of defendants (identified by name, or
identified as Doe/Roe defendants) employed at two facilities:
Robert E. Ellsworth Correctional Center and Taycheedah
Correctional Institution. She names Deanna Schaub and
Jennifer McDermott, the warden and deputy warden of
Ellsworth, as well as David Tarr, the safety director there.
Dkt. No. 1 at ¶4. She names Captain Finke, Sarah Nyden,
Captain Dierks, Captain Iacucci and Captain Malaug, and
identifies them as “employees of the [Wisconsin
Department of Corrections] at [Ellsworth] and [Taycheedah],
” and asserts that they “had direct involvement
with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Rekau.”
Id. at ¶5. She names various Doe defendants as
corrections officers and supervisors “with direct and
indirect involvement with the Plaintiff and Defendant,
Katherine M. Rekau.” Id. at ¶6. She also
names various Doe and Roe defendants whom she asserts were
“employees of the [Wisconsin Department of Corrections]
at [Ellsworth] and [Taycheedah], ” who had the
responsibility to provide “mental health support and
services to inmates, including the Plaintiff, . . . at
[Ellsworth] and [Taycheedah].” Id.
The Plaintiff's Allegations
the time of the events alleged in the complaint, the
plaintiff was incarcerated either at Ellsworth or Taycheedah.
Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶2, 9. She alleges that during 2016,
while at Ellsworth, corrections officer Katherine Rekau made
“overtly sexual statements to her, ” asked her
“about her sexual preferences, ” made
“sexually suggestive comments to her, ” and
“sexually assault[ed] her . . . at various locations
within [Ellsworth].” Id. at ¶11, 13.
plaintiff explains that Rekau used threats of segregation and
loss of privileges to intimidate the plaintiff so that she
would not report Rekau's alleged misconduct. Id.
at ¶14. According to the plaintiff, Rekau also professed
her love for the plaintiff and told the plaintiff that Rekau
“would be incarcerated if the truth were known.”
plaintiff asserts that, as a result of Rekau's alleged
misconduct, the plaintiff suffered mental and emotional
trauma, developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other
mental and emotional problems, and developed severe anxiety
and physical ailments. Id. at ¶15-16.
plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants, with the
exception of Rekau, “failed and neglected to perform
their duties and responsibilities in that they failed to
employ reasonable and adequate screening procedures, failed
to properly supervise [Rekau], and failed to enforce
reasonable rules and regulations to protect inmates including
the Plaintiff.” Id. at ¶17. The plaintiff
states that these defendants knew that there was a
substantial risk that corrections staff would sexually abuse
and assault inmates. Id. at ¶18.
plaintiff is suing Rekau in her individual capacity; she is
suing the remaining defendants in their individual and
official capacities. See id. at ¶20-22.