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.

Moore v. Rozmarynoski

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 13, 2018

RODNEY C. MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. ROZMARYNOSKI, MR. CROMWELL, SGT. LENNOYE, CO YANG, SGT. COOK, DEPUTY WARDEN SCHUELER, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO. 33), DENYING HIS MOTION TO CHANGE JURISDICTION (DKT. NO. 39) AND SCREENING HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 27)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The court gave the plaintiff, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution who is representing himself, the opportunity to file an amended complaint, dkt. no. 29; he did so on November 7, 2017, dkt. no. 27. Later, he filed a motion to stay, dkt. no. 33, and a motion to change jurisdiction, dkt. no. 29. This order resolves the plaintiff's motions and screens his amended complaint.

         I. Screening the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

         The law requires the court to screen complaints, including amended complaints, brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The 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).

         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 a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         To proceed on a claim that his constitutional rights were violated 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. Cty. 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). 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, 106 (1976)).

         A. The Plaintiff's Allegations

         The plaintiff has been in a maximum-security institution for most of his fifteen-year sentence. Dkt. No. 27 at 4. He explains that he has had little exposure to real sunlight during that time. Id. According to the plaintiff, “out of the blue” he was “hit with a spot light that seemed never to shut off.” Id. He explains that, during the summer, the light would be turned on at 6 a.m. and turned off at 10 p.m. Id. He states that at the time he filed the amended complaint, the light was on “2:00 to 5:00pm - 10:00pm.” Id. The plaintiff clarifies that he is housed in general population, not segregation. Id.

         The plaintiff alleges that he has suffered permanent eye damage, migraines and nausea as a result of long-term exposure (between Christmas break 2016 and June 29, 2017, when he went to an eye doctor) to emergency wall lighting (consisting of a 250-watt lightbulb with a magnifying lens). Id. at 3. The plaintiff states that the light had been covered at one point, but that about thirty days before he filed the amended complaint, someone removed the paper and cleaned the magnifying lens. Id. at 6. The plaintiff states that his headaches returned when the light was uncovered. Id.

         The plaintiff states that defendant Cromwell allows security to use the emergency wall lighting (rather than the ceiling lights) for everyday use. Id. at 3. According to the plaintiff, Cromwell left it up to individual security officers to use the lights as long as they think they need them, regardless of the harm they might cause. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff asserts that defendant Lennoye purposefully turns off the ceiling lights before turning on the wall lights. Id. at 5. He allegedly stated that he doesn't care if the wall lights give the plaintiff migraines; he wants “as much light in [t]here as he can get.” Id. at 5.

         Defendant Cook allegedly told the plaintiff that he is following orders from Cromwell, but Cromwell allegedly told the plaintiff that he leaves it up to security. Id. Defendant Yang allegedly told the plaintiff that while Yang could see without the lights, Lennoye had ordered the lights to be turned on, but that Lennoye would claim that it was Yang. Id. The plaintiff explains there are other unknown officers who order that the lights be on seven days per week. Id.

         According to the plaintiff, defendant Schueler, the deputy warden, told him that he would not direct the listed defendants to do anything differently. Id. at 6. The plaintiff complains to the warden (who is not a defendant), but he delegates the complaints to Schueler or Cromwell. Id.

         The plaintiff asserts that he filed inmate complaints, and that Cromwell retaliated against him by letting Rozmarynowski give him a “ticket” in January 2017, which “caused [the plaintiff] to be sexually harassed by this person to the point [the plaintiff] filed a PERA [sic] complaint.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff asserts that he then received another ticket, which was used to keep him in a maximum-security facility and took away the possibility of him going to a medium-security facility. Id. The plaintiff explains that he got the ticket in January 2017, because he put a “small piece of paper on [his] door to block the light from [his] eyes.” Id. The plaintiff also states that he filed a complaint with OSHA and a John Doe complaint. Id. at 6.

         B. The ...


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.