United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Adelman United States District Judge.
Arien Dunbar, who is representing himself, filed a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants
violated his civil rights. This case was originally assigned
to U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin; however, because not
all parties have had the opportunity to consent to magistrate
judge jurisdiction, the case was reassigned to a U.S.
District Court judge for screening of the complaint.
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. That law allows an incarcerated plaintiff
to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil 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. § 1915(b). On May 2, 2018, Judge
Duffin ordered plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee
of $11.08. Plaintiff paid the fee on June 4, 2018.
Accordingly, I will grant plaintiff's motion to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee.
filing his complaint, plaintiff has been released from
prison. Plaintiff must still pay the remainder of the filing
fee. He may do so over time, as he is able.
court is required 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 or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised 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. §
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to
relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To state a claim for
relief 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. County
of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing
Kramer v. Village of North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d
856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The court is obliged to give the
plaintiff's pro se 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)).
complaint, which contains more than 250 numbered paragraphs,
includes a significant number of allegations against
individuals who he has not named as defendants. Even if he
had named those individuals as defendants, none of the
allegations against them give rise to a claim under the
Constitution. As such, I will address only those allegations
that are relevant to the claims he seeks to state against the
events alleged in plaintiff's complaint occurred while he
was incarcerated at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF).
Prior to arriving at WSPF, plaintiff had been examined by
nurses at Jackson Correctional Institution in response to his
complaints about a rash that had developed on the back of his
neck and that had begun to spread to his face, shoulders, and
chest. The nurses prescribed Triamcinolone cream (used to
reduce swelling, itching, and redness that can occur with a
variety of skin conditions, including eczema) and Dermarest
lotion (a hydrocortisone and zinc complex used to relieve
symptoms associated with eczema). See
(last visited June 21, 2018).
explains that, after arriving at WSPF, the rash continued to
worsen and spread. On April 7, 2017, plaintiff contacted
health services about the rash. He was seen the next day by
defendant nurse Beth Edge. She diagnosed plaintiff with
“altered skin integrity” and prescribed Dermarest
lotion. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 28-34.) The next day, plaintiff
was again seen in health services and an appointment was
scheduled for plaintiff to see an off-site Advanced Care
alleges that his condition continued to deteriorate. About a
month later, on May 9, 2016, plaintiff was seen by defendant
Dr. Syed, who examined the rash and prescribed Triamcinolone
cream. Plaintiff complained several times to health services
that the Triamcinolone cream Dr. Syed prescribed was not the
same Triamcinolone cream that the nurse at his previous
institution had prescribed.
couple of weeks later, on May 23, 2016, plaintiff had a
Telemed visit with defendant APNP Cynthia Griffin, who was an
off-site specialist. She asked him about his condition, but
because it was a Telemed visit, she did not examine the rash
in person. Griffin renewed Dr. Syed's prescription for
alleges that his condition continued to worsen. About sixteen
months after his Telemed visit with Griffin, on September 18,
2017, plaintiff reviewed his medical file in an attempt to
discover the medication that health services at his previous
institution had prescribed. He alleges that he noticed the
medication Miconazole Nitrate cream (used to treat fungal
skin infections) mentioned on a form dated October 7, 2015.