United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DIZZY D. WELLS, JR., Plaintiff,
WEND MILLER and RICHARD R. SCHMIDT, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 9) AND DISMISSING CASE
PEPPER, United States District Judge.
plaintiff, who is representing himself, is an inmate at
Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution. More than a year
ago, he filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated.
Dkt. No. 1. After identifying problems in his original
complaint, the court gave him the opportunity to file an
amended complaint. Dkt. No. 8. The plaintiff did not file an
amended complaint by the deadline, so the court dismissed the
case without prejudice. Dkt. No. 11. The plaintiff then asked
the court to re-open his case so he could file an amended
complaint, dkt. no. 13; the court granted the plaintiff's
motion, dkt. no. 14. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on February 17, 2018. Dkt. No. 15. The court will screen the
plaintiff's amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.
Screening the Plaintiff's Complaint
Federal Screening Standard
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).
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. 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 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 explains that before he was “turned
over” to the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department,
he was in the custody of the Milwaukee City Police Department
(MPD). Dkt. No. 15 at 1. According to the plaintiff, the MPD
“failed to comply with the rules and procedures
outlining the proper way to book inmates into the CIB, NCIC,
and Information data base, in order to place a footprint of
the plaintiff's whereabouts while in the MPD's
custody.” Id. The plaintiff alleges that,
because he never was properly booked into the MPD's
custody, the Sheriff's Department lacked jurisdiction to
process him and keep him at the Milwaukee County Jail.
Id. at 2. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result,
his stay at the jail violated the Fourth Amendment.
plaintiff explains that the MPD's booking policy requires
its officers to get a prisoner's fingerprints and take a
current booking photograph, neither of which occurred.
Id. The plaintiff also alleges that he was not told
of the charges pending against him until he was turned over
to the Sheriff's Department for county booking.
Id. The plaintiff explains that the MPD's
procedure for arrests required the MPD to tell him why he was
being arrested. Id.
plaintiff states that, subsequently, he was charged with
violating Wis.Stat. §940.23(1) (reckless injury),
§940.30 (false imprisonment) and §940.07(1)
(homicide resulting from negligent control of vicious
animal). Id. at 2-3.
the plaintiff alleges that, while he was in the custody of
the MPD and the Sheriff's Department, he was denied
access to “Notary Services” in order to
authenticate legal documents. Id. at 3. The
plaintiff asserts that this denial violated Wis.Stat.
The Court's Analysis
court will dismiss the plaintiff's complaint because
“it is clear that no relief could be granted under any
set of facts that could be proved consistent with the
allegations.” Hishon v. King, 467 U.S. 69, ...