United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WISCONSIN (DKT. NO. 21), DENYING AS MOOT PETITION IN
SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ORDER FOR CAUSE FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 24) AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ennis Lee Brown is a Wisconsin state prisoner representing
himself. The plaintiff has filed a motion to transfer this
case to the Western District of Wisconsin, dkt. no. 21, a
proposed second amended complaint, dkt. no. 22, a proposed
order for cause for temporary injunction, dkt no. 23 and a
petition for the order for cause for temporary injunction,
dkt. no. 24. This order screens the plaintiff's second
amended complaint, dkt. no. 22, denies as moot the
plaintiff's motion to transfer case, dkt. no. 21, denies
as moot the petition for a temporary injunction, dkt. no. 24,
and dismisses the case for failure to state a claim.
March 30, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration of the court's prior screening order,
which had dismissed the complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a due process claim and for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 20 at 1, 13. In the
same order, the court construed the plaintiff's motion
for leave to file an amended complaint as a motion to reopen
the case and amend. Id. The court determined that
the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, which added
new allegations, supported denial-of-access-to-the-courts and
retaliation claims. Id. at 11-12. But, because the
plaintiff's proposed amended complaint did not identify
individual defendants personally involved in the
plaintiff's access-to-the-courts claims, the court
directed the plaintiff to file a proposed second amended
complaint if he wanted to proceed on the claims. Id.
at 12. The court told the plaintiff that he “may bring
only two claims in this second amended complaint-his
access-to-courts claim and his retaliation claim; he may
not raise any other claims in the second amended
complaint.” Id. at 13.
court described the plaintiff's access-to-courts and
retaliation claims as follows:
[T]he plaintiff alleges that in September 2015, he tried to
file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Dodge
County Circuit Court. Dkt. No. 17 at 4. He says he did not
have the money to get copies and mail to all the parties; he
says that the “money taken from [him]” kept him
from being able to pay these costs. Id. He says that
this resulted in the dismissal of his petition. Id.
The plaintiff also alleges that in October 2015, he tried to
file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. Id. That court dismissed
the petition after the plaintiff couldn't pay the fees,
supply the court with required copies or pay mailing costs.
The proposed amended complaint also alleges that defendants
Kamphuis, Hille, Pollard, and Foster retaliated against him
after he filed grievances related to Kamphuis's denial of
his request to access his release account. Dkt. No. 17 at 4,
7. The plaintiff further alleges that defendant Stabb
retaliated against him with a thirty-day loss of phone
privileges because the plaintiff tried to contact the warden
about the money erroneously taken from his account.
Id. at 7-8.
Dkt. No. 20 at 11-12.
SCREENING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
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. 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 ...