United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Eubanks, a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed
a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his civil rights. This matter is before
me on Eubanks' motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee and for screening of his
ON FILING FEE
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because
Eubanks was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. That law allows a court to give an
incarcerated plaintiff the ability 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
Eubanks pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Once Eubanks pays the initial partial filing fee,
the Court may allow him to pay the balance of the $350 filing
fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account.
April 30, 2018, I ordered Eubanks to pay an initial partial
filing fee of $10.75. Eubanks paid that fee on May 7, 2018.
Therefore, I will grant his motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Eubanks must pay the
remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained
at the end of this order.
Federal Screening Standard
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. 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 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,
is incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution He
alleges that on April 22, 2018, defendant Officer Dorn closed
Eubanks' hand in the “trap” (presumably, the
trap door of his cell through which officers can pass things
to inmates), causing pain and blood. Eubanks states that it
is unclear why Dorn closed his hand in the trap.
April 23, 2018, Dorn allegedly told Eubanks that Eubanks had
no other choice but to allow Dorn to take him to see the
nurse, or he would not see the nurse at all. Eubanks allowed
Dorn to take him to the nurse. On the way back, Officer Dorn
said, “how do that hand feel just be lucky I didn't
break it [sic].” (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
alleges that on April 23, 2018, he wrote a letter to
defendant Warden Brian Foster stating that Officer Dorn had
assaulted him the previous day. Warden Foster allegedly