United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND
SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, who is representing himself, filed this case under
42 U.S.C. §1983, dkt. no. 1, along with a motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt.
no. 2. This order resolves his motion and screens the
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was in custody when he filed the
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, if he
meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the
plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
plaintiff has paid an initial partial filing fee of $23.00,
as directed. Accordingly, the court will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. The court will require the plaintiff to pay the
remainder of the filing fee ($327.00) over time as set forth
at the end of this decision.
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).
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 pleaded, ” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
The Plaintiff's Allegations
plaintiff alleges that on August 3, 2016, he was housed in
the “special needs pod” in the Milwaukee County
Jail. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. His cell was covered in feces and he
“could barely inhale.” Id. An officer
told him that she would have the cell cleaned once her
partner returned from break, but she didn't, so the
plaintiff flooded his cell to get out of it. Id.
Defendant Lt. Mantano responded by putting the plaintiff in
the “hole.” Id. This was in spite of the
fact that another inmate flooded his cell, but instead of
being sent to segregation, was just moved to another cell in
special needs. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff spent nine
months in segregation without a hearing and “never
receiving the conduct report when I asked of this from
[defendant] Capt. Hannah.” Id. at 3.
plaintiff also alleges that the jail's grievance office
never responds. Id. He states that he “lost
canteen” and that “they never responded back to a
grievance or reimbursed [him] for it.” Id.
the plaintiff alleges that almost daily jail staff let
inmates' food sit out for over an hour, resulting in cold
food. Id. at 3-4.
alleges that in segregation, staff will not allow inmates to
clean their toilets and, therefore, the cells smell horrible.
Id. at 4. He says that officers take hour-long
breaks, when the breaks should be only thirty minutes, and
that they lock inmates in their cells. Id. He argues
that it is cruel and unusual punishment ...