United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH M. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
DAVE BROOKS, FSA MARTIN, JEAN LUTSEY, SCOTT ECKSTEIN, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Joseph Jackson, who is representing himself, filed a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is
assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph; however,
because not all parties have had the opportunity to consent
to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was randomly
referred to this U.S. District Court judge for screening of
the complaint. After entry of this Order, the case
will be returned to Judge Joseph for further proceedings.
to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act gives courts discretion to allow
prisoners to proceed with their lawsuits without prepaying
the $350.00 filing fee, as long as they comply with certain
requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. One of those
requirements is that the prisoner pay an initial partial
filing fee. On December 28, 2017, Judge Joseph ordered
Jackson to pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.04. He
paid that fee on February 20, 2018. The court will grant
Jackson's motion. He must pay the remainder of the filing
fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this
of the 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).
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. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824,
827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. of N. 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, 106 (1976)).
in the Complaint
explains that he arrived at Green Bay Correctional
Institution in 2017. He asserts that his medical records were
sent to health services; the records indicated that he had
been diagnosed with an allergy to apples. Jackson states that
exposure to apples “could lead to his death, as
breathing passage swell and close.” ECF No. 1 ¶
20. Jackson states that the information regarding his allergy
was also forwarded to the dietary department to ensure his
meals were free of apple products.
asserts that he spoke to defendant Martin about his allergy,
and Martin informed Jackson that he would not receive a food
tray free of apple products. Martin allegedly told Jackson
that the institution does not provide food substitutions for
explains that he was forced to accept food trays containing
foods that his dietician had warned him to avoid, such as
apple sauce, apple bars, and fruit salad with apples. Jackson
asserts that Martin and Brooks repeatedly told him to eat
around the apples; however, Jackson explains that there is a
lot of cross-contamination and that he was often unsure
whether food contained apple products.
alleges that Martin and Brooks informed the complaint
examiner that substitutions are not given for allergies to
foods such as onions, apples, and tomatoes. They allegedly
stated that the Green Bay food services department requires
inmates to use a “self-select process.”
Id. ¶ 15. According to Jackson, Martin
instructed him to contact health services to get
documentation confirming his allergy and ordering an
apple-free food tray. Jackson states that he contacted Lutsey
to enforce the dietician's order. He does not indicate
whether or how Lutsey responded.