United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ADELMAN DISTRICT JUDGE.
Sandro Rodriguez, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is
representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that defendants violated his civil
rights. This matter comes before me on plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and
for screening of the complaint. Docket Nos. 1-2.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to
this action because plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed
this complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915. The law
allows an incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with a lawsuit
without prepaying the civil case filing fee, as long as he
meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is payment
of an initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). Once plaintiff pays the initial partial filing
fee, I can allow plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350
filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner
September 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge David E. Jones ordered
plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $ 3.23.
Docket. No. 5. Plaintiff paid the fee on October 11, 2017.
Therefore, I will grant plaintiff's motion for leave 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.
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 an action or portion thereof
if the claims alleged are “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. § 1915(e)(2)(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). I must give 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)).
is an inmate at Redgranite Correctional Institution
(“RGCI”). Docket No. 1. Defendants are: Warden
Michael Meisner, Correctional Officer Bembo, Doctor Jhon
Silkey, Nurse Moerchen, Lieutenant Jaeger, and Nurse Bater.
September 6, 2015, plaintiff was weight lifting on an incline
bench at RGCI when one of the pins designed to hold the
weights came loose. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff fell
forward and struck his face on the stack of weights.
Id. at 3. Plaintiff was dizzy and confused and had
blood all over his face. Id. Other inmates who were
in exercise area came over to help plaintiff. Id.
Someone told Correctional Officer Bembo what happened and
Bembo did not help or see how serious plaintiff's injury
was. Id. No nurse ever arrived to help plaintiff in
the exercise area. Id. at 4.
little while later, a different correctional officer came by
to see what happened. Id. This officer took
plaintiff to the Health Services Unit (“HSU”),
but he did so by foot instead of by wheelchair. Id.
Plaintiff's walk to HSU was difficult-he was dizzy,
confused, bleeding, and unable to properly follow directions.
Id. Once plaintiff arrived at HSU, there was no
nurse available. Id. Captain Wesner (not a
defendant) instructed prison staff to take plaintiff to
Berlin Memorial Hospital. Id.
drive to Berlin Memorial was 40 to 45 minutes long.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff was dizzy, confused, bleeding,
and unable to follow directions the entire time. Id.
Despite this, prison staff required plaintiff to exchange his
clothing due to prison policy, which added a 10- to 15-minute
delay. Id. At this point, plaintiff still had not
seen a nurse. Id.
plaintiff arrived at Berlin Memorial Hospital, Doctor Silkey
and a nurse “received” plaintiff. Id.
Silkey examined plaintiff and concluded that plaintiff had a
deep laceration in his forehead and right eyelid.
Id. Silkey gave plaintiff a total of 11 stitches but
he did so without proper cleaning. Id. Plaintiff
asked Silkey why the wound was not properly cleaned but
Silkey ignored the question. Id. Plaintiff also did
not get any pain medication while at the hospital.
Id. at 6. Plaintiff then went back to RGCI.
next day, on September 7, 2015, plaintiff went to HSU to see
Nurse Moerchen. Id. Plaintiff explained that he had
pain in his neck, head, and lower back; trouble walking; and
blurry vision. Id. Moerchen sent plaintiff back to
his housing unit without addressing his concerns.
Id. Moerchen did not provide plaintiff with pain
medication. Id. at 7.
days after that, on September 9, 2015, Lieutenant Jaeger
called plaintiff to the officer's station to discuss what
happened in the weight room. Id. Jaeger told
plaintiff that he would be disciplined for misuse of the
weight machine. Id. Plaintiff explained that the pin
used to hold the weights in place slipped out-he did not
misuse the weights. Id. Jaeger gave him the conduct
report anyway. Id. Plaintiff asked if he could
refuse to sign the conduct report and Jaeger explained that
if plaintiff did that, he had the right to take “more
drastic measures.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff signed
the conduct report even though he felt intimidated by