United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ADELMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is currently assigned to Magistrate Judge William E.
Duffin. All the parties have not had the opportunity to
consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Therefore, the case
is before me for the limited purpose of screening the
complaint. This case will return to Judge Duffin after entry
of this order.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to
this action because plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed
the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The PLRA allows an
incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with a lawsuit in federal
court without pre-paying the full civil case filing fee so
long as he pays an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b). On February 2, 2018, Judge Duffin assessed an
initial partial filing fee of $26.25. Docket. No. 6.
Plaintiff paid that amount on February 16, 2018. Therefore, I
will grant plaintiff's motion to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee.
PLRA requires federal courts 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). I must dismiss part or all of a complaint if
it raises claims that are legally “frivolous or
malicious, ” fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system,
plaintiff must provide a "short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]"
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide "fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). “Labels and conclusions” or a
"formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action” will not do. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
factual content of the complaint must allow me to “draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id. Allegations must
“raise a right to relief above the speculative
level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual
allegations, when accepted as true, must state a claim that
is “plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.
follow the two-step analysis set forth in Twombly to
determine whether a complaint states a claim. Id. at
679. First, I determine whether the plaintiff's legal
conclusions are supported by factual allegations.
Id. Legal conclusions not support by facts
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth."
Id. Second, I determine whether the well-pleaded
factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief." Id. Pro se
allegations, “however inartfully pleaded, ” are
given a liberal construction. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
is an inmate at the Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution
(“KMCI”). Docket No. 1. Defendants are KMCI staff
members: Mr. McInnis is the Education Director at KMCI;
Casetta is a Correctional Officer at KMCI; and K. Salinas is
a member of the Inmate Complaint Review System
(“ICRS”) at KMCI. Id.
September 27, 2017, plaintiff fell in the KMCI school
bathroom. Id. at 2. He reported the fall to Officer
Merkes (not a defendant), and Merkes took plaintiff to the
Health Services Unit (“HSU”) for a medical
evaluation. Id. Plaintiff returned to the KMCI
school to pick up his books and the books were in
Casetta's office. Id. Plaintiff noticed that
some newspapers that were inside his books were missing.
Id. at 2-3.
next day, plaintiff arrived at the KMCI school and Casetta
gave him a conduct report for having newspapers from the
library. Id. at 3. Plaintiff told Casetta that he
had permission from the librarian to have the newspapers, but
Casetta gave him a conduct report anyway. Id.
Casetta also provided McInnis with “false
information” to get plaintiff fired from his job.
Id. Plaintiff believes that Casetta (who is
responsible for keeping the bathrooms clean) was retaliating
against him because he had fallen in the bathroom the day
before and reported the incident to Officer Merkes.
Id. at 4.
or two later, on or around October 5, 2017, plaintiff filed
two inmate complaints on the incident: one for the fall and
another for Casetta's profane language and aggressive
behavior. Id. at 3-4. Both complaints were
dismissed. Id. at 4. According to plaintiff, his
inmate complaints were decided based on “false
information” and “misleading facts” from
Casetta, Salinas, and McInnis. Id. Plaintiff
believes Casetta, Salinas, and McInnis gave inaccurate
information to “cover up” his fall. Id.
He seeks monetary damages.
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
plaintiff must allege that defendants: 1) deprived him of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States; and 2) acted under color of state law.
Buchanan-Moore v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824,
827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. of North Fond