United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
TERRY L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
WARDEN MALONE, JOHN DOE, BRUCE E., CO WEISE, CO PEKENOW, SGT ROBINSON, and CAPTAIN BRICK, Defendants.
AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2), SCREENING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 1 AT P. 4) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HAVE HIS SOCIAL WORKER SEND HIS
PROPERTY TO HIM (DKT. NO. 7)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
April 5, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint under
§1983, alleging that the defendants were violating his
constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1. He also filed a motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt.
No. 2. On April 19, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking
the court to order his social worker to mail his legal
documents to him. Dkt. No. 7. This decision resolves the
plaintiff's motions and screens his complaint.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The PLRA allows a court to
give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with
his lawsuit without prepaying the case filing fee, as long as
he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is that
the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28
April 18, 2017, the court decided that the plaintiff lacked
sufficient funds to pay an initial partial filing fee, so it
waived that requirement. Dkt. No. 6. The court will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee, and will require him to pay the entire $350
filing fee over time as explained at the end of this
Screening the Plaintiff's 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, malicious, or
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).
state a claim 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 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
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,
The Plaintiff's Allegations
plaintiff alleges that “every time [he does] legal work
or get[s] on a religious diet prison staff retaliate against
[him] with psychological warfare mindgames headgames chaos
confusion.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The plaintiff states that
he is under attack from the warden, guards, unit managers and
even nurses. Id. at 3. He states that they are
attacking him with mindgames, spiritual warfare and evil
spirits. Id. He alleges that these attacks occur,
not just when he does legal work or gets on a religious diet,
but when he practices religion and politics and
“African American studies.” Id. at 2.
plaintiff also alleges that when he is “short something
on [his] special diet, ” he has observed officers going
into the control center and coming back with items that only
he gets; in other words, he alleges that officers are holding
his food in the control center and not giving him anything to
replace it. Id. at 3. He also alleges that his life
is in danger, that his food is tampered with and that someone
is spitting in it. Id.