United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 5),
SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A, AND
DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, dkt.
no. 1, along with a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 5. This order resolves
the motion and screens the complaint.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The PLRA allows a court to
give an incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with
his lawsuit without prepaying the 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.
15, 2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $17.17. Dkt. No. 4. The plaintiff paid
that fee on June 5, 2017. Accordingly, the court will grant
the plaintiff's motion. The court will require the
plaintiff to pay the remainder of the filing fee over time as
set forth at the end of this decision.
Screening the Plaintiff's Complaint
requires the court 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).
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).
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).
state a claim 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)).
The Plaintiff's Allegations
plaintiff is incarcerated at the Green Bay Correctional
Institution (GBCI). Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He has sued Warden Scott
Eckstein, Security Director John Kind, Health Service Manager
Jean Lutsey, Captain Brandt, Unit Manager Cathy Francois,
Clinician Steve Schmidt, Wisconsin Department of Corrections
(DOC) Secretary Jon Litscher, DOC Deputy Secretary Cathy Jess
(sued as “Kathy Jess”) and DOC Administrator Jim
Schwochert. Id. at 1-3.
plaintiff alleges that on September 21, 2016, he was
incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution; he says
that he was being considered for placement in administrative
confinement, but that three people concluded “at the
time of the hearing no need to place” him into
administrative confinement. Id. at 3. On September
30, 2016, the plaintiff arrived GBCI. Id. at 4. When
he arrived, the transporting officer told Captain Stevens
(the supervisor, who is not a defendant) that the plaintiff
was “general population status;” the plaintiff
says that was wearing green clothing. Id. Lieutenant
Swiekatowski (who is not a defendant) subsequently placed a
temporary lock-up notice on the plaintiff pending
administrative confinement review. Id. Defendant
Warden Eckstein ordered the temporary lock-up placement.
Id. at 8.
plaintiff asserts that the reason he was moved from Waupun to
GBCI was because an officer who was a “purported family
member plaintiff's alleged victim” had placed an
“SPN” on the plaintiff; he does not explain what
an “SPN” is. Id. at 4. He also says that
while he was at Waupun, he was in general population except
for a brief time in segregation while he was awaiting a
lateral transfer to another institution. Id.
November 30, 2016, defendant Captain Brandt submitted a
recommendation for administrative confinement which contained
“the same identical information that had already been
considered by Waupun Correctional Institution Administrative
Confinement Review Committee concluding that no
administrative confinement placement was necessary.”
Id. Defendant Kind reviewed the plaintiff's