United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
JOSEPH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
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.
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.
Screening of the Complaint
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).
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).
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)).
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.
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
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. ¶ 23.
The responding ...