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), GRANTING HIS MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO.
10) AND SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1)
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge
he was incarcerated at the Wisconsin Resource Center, the
plaintiff-representing himself-filed a complaint, alleging
that the defendants violated his constitutional right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment when they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Dkt.
No. 1. The plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and a
motion to add defendants, dkt. no. 10. This decision will
screen the complaint and resolve the plaintiff's motions.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case,
because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The PLRA authorizes
a court to allow an incarcerated plaintiff 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 pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
August 8, 2017, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin (who was
assigned to the case at that time) ordered that by August 30,
2017, the plaintiff had to pay an initial partial filing fee
of $1.43. Dkt. No. 5. The court received the filing fee on
August 24, 2017. The court will grant the plaintiff's
motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The
court will order the plaintiff to pay the remainder of the
filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of
Screening the Plaintiff's Complaint
PLRA 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.
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 he suffers from degenerative joint
disc disease, and that he has been on pain medication and in
physical therapy since the 1990's. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. While
his medication had been on a “prn” (shorthand for
the Latin phrase pro re nata, which means
“when necessary” or “as needed”)
basis, the plaintiff asserts that he requested the doctor
(who is not a defendant) to change his “yellow pain
pill” to a regularly scheduled basis. Id. at
3. According to the plaintiff, the doctor complied and
ordered that he take the pill twice daily, rather than only
when he needed it. Id.
plaintiff alleges that, during the second week of June 2017,
Nurse Parker and Nurse Megan failed to give him his medication
at the regular medication pass. Id. The plaintiff
states that both nurses said they “forgot” the
medication. Id. The plaintiff explains he waited all
day but never received his prescription medication, which
caused him “extreme mental and emotional distress via
pain and suffering.” Id.
plaintiff also alleges that on June 22, 2017, defendant Nurse
Erin did not give him his yellow pain pill; when he asked her
about it, she stated that she was told (it is unclear by
whom) not to bring it. Id. at 4.