Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redmond v. Moungey

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 5, 2018

JAMAR REDMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT ANDREW MOUNGEY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JACOB DORN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LUND, and NURSE JENNIFER KACYON, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

          NANCY JOSEPH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Jamar Redmond, a Wisconsin state prisoner representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. Docket # 1. He also filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Docket # 5. On January 31, 2018, Redmond filed an amended complaint. Docket # 7. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Redmond is allowed to amend his complaint once as a matter of course. Therefore, his amended complaint is the operative complaint.

         The court has jurisdiction to resolve Redmond's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and screen his amended complaint in light of Redmond's consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Wisconsin Department of Justice's limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court.

         1. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because Redmond was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That law allows a court to give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with his lawsuit without prepaying the civil case filing fee, as long as he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is 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.

         On March 6, 2018, I ordered Redmond to pay an initial partial filing fee of $0.98. Docket # 11. Redmond paid that fee on March 26, 2018. Therefore, I will grant his 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.

         2. Screening of the Complaint

         2.1 Allegations

         Federal law requires that I 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 a complaint 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. § 1915A(b).

         To 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 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).

         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 caused by the defendant 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). I am obliged to give the 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)).

         Redmond alleges that on November 5, 2017, after having been escorted back to his cell by Sergeant Moungey and Officer Dorn, the prison officials attached him to his cell door with a “bullstrap” and physically assaulted him. Docket #7, ¶ 13. After the attack, Moungey aggressively removed the “bullstrap” causing Redmond to suffer a “six inch laceration” on his arm. Id. ¶ 14. When plaintiff requested medical treatment for the injury, Moungey responded “good luck with that.” Id. ¶ 16. Both officers then walked away.

         At some point, Redmond saw Nurse Jennifer Kacyon walking by his cell and informed her of his injury. Kacyon told Redmond she would get a bandage for the laceration and then left. She did not return.

         Later that day, Redmond pressed the intercom button in his cell and informed the responding officer that he was “going to commit self-harm by overdosing on pills that the plaintiff ha[d] stored up in his cell.” Id. ΒΆ 23. The responding ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.