United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge.
Dennis Strong, who is confined at the Dodge Correctional
Institution, is representing himself. The plaintiff's
complaint alleges that defendant Probation Agent Chad
Corrigan created a revocation summary based in part on false
information. Dkt. No. 1. This order resolves the
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and screens the
Application to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee (Dkt.
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because the
plaintiff is incarcerated. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The law
allows a court to give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability
to proceed with his lawsuit without pre-paying the civil
case-filing fee, as long as he meets certain conditions.
Id. One of those conditions is a requirement that
the plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays the initial partial
filing fee, the court may allow the plaintiff to pay the
balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions
from his prisoner account. Id.
August 7, 2017, the court issued an order finding that the
plaintiff lacked the funds to pay an initial partial filing
fee, and waiving that fee under 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(4).
Dkt. No. 5. The court's August 7, 2017 order also gave
the plaintiff an opportunity to voluntarily dismiss this
case, to avoid incurring a “strike. The plaintiff has
not filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. The court
will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filling fee, and will allow the
plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee over time from his
prisoner account, as described at the end of this order.
SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Standard for Screening Complaints
Prison Litigation Reform Act 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). A court may
dismiss a case, or part of it, 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.
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, a
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 Atl. 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 555).
factual content of a complaint must allow a court 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.
courts follow the two-step analysis set forth in
Twombly to determine whether a complaint states a
claim. Id. at 679. First, a court determines whether
the plaintiff's legal conclusions are supported by
factual allegations. Id. Legal conclusions that are
not supported by facts “are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Id. Second, a court
determines whether the well-pleaded factual allegations
“plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
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. Vill. of N. Fond du
Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). A court gives
pro se allegations, “however inartfully
pleaded, ” a liberal construction. See
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
plaintiff alleges that in June 2017, defendant Agent Corrigan
created and distributed a revocation summary for Outagamie
County Case Number 11-CF-05, based in part on disingenuous,
misleading, and false information. Dkt. No. 1 at 3, 5. The
plaintiff attached the Revocation Summary to his complaint.
Dkt. No. 1-1. The document indicates that defendant Corrigan
recommended revocation of the plaintiff's probation based
on allegations that the plaintiff violated the rules of his
probation. Id. at 1, 6. The revocation summary also
states that the plaintiff was placed in custody on the
revocation on March 21, 2017, and that defendant Corrigan
recommended a sentence of twelve ...