Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Milwaukee County Jail

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 26, 2018

JAMIL S. ALLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY JAIL, ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM E DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jamil S. Allen, who is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. This order resolves that motion and screens his complaint.

         Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) gives courts discretion to allow prisoners 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 they pay an initial partial filing fee. On October 26, 2017, the court ordered Allen to pay an initial partial filing fee of $71.50. Allen paid that fee on November 14, 2017. Accordingly, the court will grant Allen's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this order.

         Screening of the Complaint

         The court is required 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 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).

         To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To state a claim for relief 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 deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons 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 is obliged to give a plaintiff's pro se 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, 106 (1976)).

         The Complaint's Allegations

         Allen is currently incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail. On September 10, 2017, Allen injured his ankle when he slipped in water that had not been cleaned up. Two correctional officers knew that water was on the floor, leaking from a previously- flooded cell. A correctional officer asked that the water be cleaned up prior to inmates returning from the gym.

         Allen says that defendant Armor Correctional Health Services ignored his injuries for two days. Once they evaluated him, they x-rayed his ankle, prescribed pain pills, and placed him in a wheelchair due to a severe sprain. On September 21, 2017, Nurse Chissen did the evening medication pass. She gave Allen the wrong medication, providing him with L. Allen's medication rather than his own. Since then, Allen has been experiencing migraine headaches, skin irritations, and strange thoughts. Though he has repeatedly asked Armor what medications he ingested, it would not provide the information.

         Allen reports that he had a motor skill test done on October 5, 2017, and the doctor said he did not “know what's going on in [Allen's] brain.” Allen seeks monetary damages for the Jail's negligence in failing to clean up the water, Armor's initial refusal to treat his injury, and the state of anxiety he is in as a result of receiving the wrong medication.

         The Court's Analysis

         As it is now, Allen's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Allen has three potential claims, and only one is cognizable under § 1983. Negligence (even gross negligence) does not constitute a constitutional violation, Rosario v. Brown, 670 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2012), so the only claim he could bring, based on the facts he alleges, that implicates the Constitution is his claim that Armor failed to timely provide medical care. That claim, however, is not brought against ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.