United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JASON M. PARKER, Plaintiff,
C.O. KNECHT, et al., Defendants.
ADELMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jason M. Parker, who was formerly confined at 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 motion to appoint counsel.
Docket No. 8. His motion to correct the name of a defendant
is granted. Docket No. 7. C.O. Keintz will now be identified
as C.O. Knecht.
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 April 4, 2017, while he was confined at
Kenosha County Jail, he began to experience pain and itching
through his body. His family called the jail and spoke to the
nurses, who advised them to tell plaintiff that he should
tell his dorm officer that it was an emergency and he needed
to get to “medical” immediately. When plaintiff
notified the defendants, dorm officer Holterman, correctional
officer Knecht, and correctional officer Shelby, Knecht
yelled, “Just 'cause your family called up here,
doesn't mean you're going to medical.” Knecht
became very angry, and plaintiff asked for his badge number.
Knecht refused to give it. Later, correctional officer
Martini and a nurse were on plaintiff's cell block. The
other inmates and plaintiff notified them that he needed
medical services, but they ignored him. Docket No. 1 at p.
3-4. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 5.
appears that at the time of the events underlying this
lawsuit, plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. A pretrial
detainee's claim of inadequate medical care is a Due
Process claim, but it is analyzed in the same way as a
prisoner's claim under the Eighth Amendment complaining
that officials were deliberately indifferent. Chavez v.
Cady, 207 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2000). Prison
officials violate the proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment when their conduct demonstrates 'deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of
prisoners.'" Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d
1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). This standard contains both an
objective element (that the medical needs be sufficiently
serious) and a subjective element (that the officials act
with a sufficiently culpable state of mind). Id. I
will allow plaintiff to proceed on a deliberate indifference
claim against defendants Holterman, Knecht, Shelby, Martini,
and the not-yet-identified nurse based on his allegations
that they ignored his requests for medical treatment when he
was experiencing pain and itching throughout his body. Once a
scheduling order has been issued, the plaintiff will use
discovery to identify the unnamed nurse defendant.
lists many other prison officials in his complaint, but the
only defendants he has identified as being actively involved
are those I have listed above. Therefore, the following
defendants are dismissed from the lawsuit: C.O. Barry, C.O.
Valiuga, C.O. Tietz, C.O. Smith, C.O. Rhonda, C.O. Hamilton,
Steve (Aramark) Commissary, Sgt. Willstead, Cpl. Reid, Nurse
Jamie, C.O. Gaitan, C.O. Israel, C.O. Norwood, Det. Keith,
C.O. T. Smith, C.O. Gillett, C.O. Haynes, Desk Clerk, C.O.
Martinez, C.O. V. Sarzant, C.O. Vallamolla, and C.O. Todd.
appears that plaintiff wants to hold the Kenosha County
Sheriff's Department and Kenosha County Correctional
Health Services (sued as KCCHS) liable for the alleged
misconduct of their employees. However, § 1983
“creates a cause of action based on personal liability
and predicated upon fault; thus liability does not attach
unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional violation.” Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). There is no supervisory
liability, collective liability, or vicarious liability under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Pacelli v. ...