United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 6), DEEMING
MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 2) WITHDRAWN AND
SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Joshua Howard is confined at Green Bay Correctional
Institution (GBCI), and is representing himself. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to have him
transferred him to GBCI to punish him for helping another
inmate with his civil rights case. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff
has paid the full filing fee. This order screens the
Standard for Screening Complaints
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts 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). A court may
dismiss a case, or part of it, if the claims alleged are
“frivolous or malicious, ” fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, a
plaintiff must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide “fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“Labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will
not do. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
factual content of a complaint must allow a court to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Indeed, allegations must “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must state a
claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
courts follow the two-step analysis in Twombly to
determine whether a complaint states a claim. Id. at
679. First, a court determines whether the plaintiff's
legal conclusions are supported by factual allegations.
Id. Legal conclusions not supported by facts
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
Id. Second, a court determines whether the
well-pleaded factual allegations “plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
state a claim that his civil 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 deprivation was visited upon
him by a person or persons 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). A court gives
pro se allegations, “however inartfully
pleaded, ” a liberal construction. See
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
plaintiff was incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional
Institution (WCI) when he filed the complaint, dkt. no. 1 at
1, and now is incarcerated at GBCI, dkt. no. 6. Defendant
Tony Meli is the security director at WCI. Dkt. No.1 at 2.
Defendants Jeremy Westra and Cynthia Radtke are security
captains at WCI. Id.
plaintiff describes himself as an “active litigator,
” who has filed several lawsuits against employees of
the Department of Corrections,  and has helped other inmates to
file lawsuits. Id.
plaintiff alleges that he has been diagnosed with
“Social Anxiety Disorder with Paruresis.”
Id. He also alleges that, at an early age, he was
diagnosed with Gynephobia and that this diagnosis prevents
him from using the bathroom in front of others. Id. at
2-3. In addition, the plaintiff states that he has an
irrational fear of taking showers in view of others, even
those also taking showers. Id.
plaintiff alleges that in 2015, the defendants referred him
for a transfer to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility
(WSPF) and that he was ultimately
“PRC'd” to WSPF. Id. But WCI security
staff withdrew the referral to WSPF based on the
plaintiff's condition. Id. at 2-3. Staff
determined that WSPF was not a suitable prison because the
“facilities” there are “open”
compared to other maximum security institutions. Id.
plaintiff alleges that he has been assisting another inmate
with a lawsuit against defendants Meli, Westra, and Radtke.
Id. at 3. On June 15, 2017, the defendants answered
interrogatories that the plaintiff had drafted for the
inmate's case. Id. The following week, defendant
Westra had the plaintiff brought to the security offices at
WCI. Id. Westra asked the plaintiff about the other
inmate's lawsuit and the plaintiff's relationship
with the inmate. Id. Westra also ...