United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ADELMAN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, who is confined at the Milwaukee County Jail, is
representing himself. He filed a complaint alleging that the
defendant violated his constitutional rights. This matter
comes before the court on plaintiff's petition to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee (in forma
pauperis) and to screen the complaint.
has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of
$14.64. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). I will
therefore grant his motion to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee. I will collect the rest of the filing fee as
explained at the end of this order.
of Review for Screening Complaint
court shall 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. §
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, 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). It is not necessary
for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his statement
need only “give the defendant 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)). However, a complaint that offers mere “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 555). To state a claim, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, “that is plausible on its face.”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint's
allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should
follow the principles set forth in Twombly by first,
“identifying pleadings that, because they are no more
than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Legal
conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.
Id. If there are well-pleaded factual allegations,
the court must, second, “assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Id.
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 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,
sues defendant Lt. Montano, who works at the Milwaukee County
Jail, in her individual and official capacities. He alleges
that on September 16, 2017, he was placed in segregation for
allegedly possessing weapons in violation of jail rules. On
September 19, 2017, defendant held a rule violation hearing.
Plaintiff was found guilty of possessing weapons and
sentenced to twenty-eights days in disciplinary segregation.
Plaintiff was then held in segregation an additional
twenty-five days as a “max inmate” because of the
“serious allegation of possessing weapons.” On
November 8, 2017, plaintiff was released from the jail's
alleges that defendant violated his due process rights at the
rule violation hearing because, (1) he did not receive a copy
of the rule violation before the hearing; (2) he did not have
the opportunity to produce witnesses, review physical
evidence, or review the jail's security camera recording
to try to prove his innocence at his hearing; and (3) he was
not provided with a “Statement of Reasons” after
the hearing as to why he was found guilty and why he received
the discipline he received, nor was he made aware of any
right to appeal the decision.
September 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a grievance alleging due
process violations at his hearing. The grievance “was
ignored.” On September 28, 2017, plaintiff wrote a
“Prisoners' Request” in which he sought a
response to his grievance. He has not received a response to
his grievance or his Prisoner Request.
seeks injunctive relief ordering defendant to expunge the
violation from his disciplinary record. He also seek $53, 000