United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JASON M. PARKER, Plaintiff,
NURSE JAMIE, et al., Defendants.
ADELMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jason M. Parker, who was formerly confined at the Kenosha
County Jail, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that defendants violated his civil rights. This
order resolves plaintiff's motion to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee and screens his complaint.
Docket Nos. 2 & 1. It also resolves his motions to
appoint counsel. Docket Nos. 7 & 8.
Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed his
complaint. The PLRA gives courts discretion to allow
plaintiffs 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 plaintiff pay an initial partial
filing fee. On July 11, 2017, U.S. Magistrate Judge William
E. Duffin (the judge assigned to the case at that time)
ordered plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of
$36.45. Plaintiff paid that fee on July 26, 2017. As such, I
will grant his motion to proceed without prepayment of the
full filing fee. Plaintiff must pay the remainder of the
of Plaintiff's Complaint
law requires that I 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).
I 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).
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). I will
give 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,
alleges that on May 13, 2017, inmates on D-Block refused to
lockdown, demanding that plaintiff be provided with medical
attention for the rashes on his body, which came and went and
caused him pain. Plaintiff had been filling out medical slips
since February and had not yet been treated.
Corporal Carlos and Kenosha County sheriffs told plaintiff to
pack his property and that they were putting him in
segregation. A minute or two later, Carlos told plaintiff to
leave his property. Plaintiff would be going to
“medical.” Plaintiff alleges that officers wanted
to retaliate against him for filing grievances and because
his family called the jail and contacted the health
department. C.O. Raire escorted the plaintiff to
“medical” around 9:00 to 9:19 p.m. Defendant
Nurse Jamie refused to treat plaintiff. When plaintiff asked
to go off site, Jamie threatened to have plaintiff put in
segregation. Later, Jamie denied everything in front a
(visiting) doctor from United Hospital. Docket No. 1 at
2-3.Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 4.
that at the time of the incident described above, the
plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. It is well-established
that a pretrial detainee must be afforded certain protections
under the Fourteenth Amendment, including access to adequate
medical care. Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300
F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Due
process rights are at least as great as the protections
afforded a convicted prisoner under the Eighth Amendment.
Id. Accordingly, when considering a pretrial
detainee's claim of inadequate medical care, the
analogous standards under the Eighth Amendment are often
used. Id. To establish liability for deliberate
indifference to a medical need, a prisoner must show: (1)
that his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) that
the official acted with deliberate indifference to the
prisoner's health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Chapman v. Keltner, 241
F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976); Zentmyer v.
Kendall County, Illinois, 220 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir.
on his allegations, plaintiff has stated a claim against
Nurse Jamie for deliberate indifference. He has not, however,
stated a claim against any of the other defendants he has
named. In order for liability to attach under § 1983, a
defendant must have actually caused or participated in the
alleged constitutional violation. Vance v. Peters,
97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff's complaint
does not plead facts sufficient to state a claim against any
defendant other than Nurse Jamie. Although he alleges that
some of the correctional officers wanted to ...