United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM T. ANTEPENKO, JR., Plaintiff,
WISCONSIN STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES BUREAU OF CHILD SUPPORT, BROWN COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, LISA VAN PAY, and JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
(DKT. NO. 2), SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND
DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/PRELMINARY
INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 12)
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff is a state prisoner, and is representing himself.
On October 3, 2017, he filed a complaint, alleging that the
defendants violated his civil rights by having his wages
garnished and placing liens on his property when he did not
owe an child support arrearages. Dkt. No. 1. In addition to
filing a complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. He
also has filed a motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 12.
This decision screens the complaint and resolve the
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Fee (Dkt. No. 2)
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 must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28
October 5, 2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $7.52 by October 27, 2017. Dkt.
No. 5. The court received that payment on October 12, 2017.
Accordingly, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The court
will order the plaintiff to pay the remainder of the filing
fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this
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).
proceed with 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 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 alleges that in 2005, he and Julie Ann Gellin, the
mother of his child, met with defendant Lisa Van Pay, their
caseworker at the Brown County Child Support Agency. Dkt. No.
1 at 4. According to the plaintiff, Gellin terminated the
child support order against him, and expunged all of the
arrears and interest he owed her. Id. The plaintiff
states that Van Pay informed him that Gellin had no authority
“to sign off [on] the interest owed to the State of
Wisconsin and that the[re] was no State Law requiring the
plaintiff to pay the interest owed.” Id. The
plaintiff states that, at Van Pay's request, he agreed to
pay $10 per month toward the interest owed to the state.
plaintiff says that Van Pay neglected to inform him that the
amount he agreed to pay was not sufficient to cover the
interest rate on what he owed the State, effectively keeping
the plaintiff in debt to the State Child Support Agency
plaintiff states that, as time went on, he began to receive
letters and notices from the Child Support Agency stating
that he owed child support, arrears, interest and
receipt-and-disbursement (R&D) fees. Id. He
asserts that the Child Support Agency put a title lien on his
motorcycle, made a negative report to the credit bureau, and
activated an administrative lien in the amount of $1, 521.57.
plaintiff explains that he wrote to Van Pay in an effort to
understand what was going on. Id. The plaintiff said
the response he received stated that “the plaintiff
[is] not eligible for a review at this time.”
Id. The plaintiff states that he continued to tell
Van Pay that he did not owe money, but that Van Pay refused
to listen. Id. The plaintiff explains that he wrote