United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
RODNEY C. MOORE, Plaintiff,
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.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
Screening the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
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
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).
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,
The Plaintiff's Allegations
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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