United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bruce Terrell Davis, Jr., a state prisoner who is
representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Davis alleges that the defendants Susan
Harrispeters and J. Lutsey violated, and continue to violate,
his civil rights by delaying his medical treatment. (ECF No.
1.) He asserts that they have failed to follow the
recommendations of two doctors to schedule him for an
appointment to see a back specialist for his spine condition.
Id. Davis has also filed a motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (ECF No. 2).
This order resolves Davis's motion and screens his
Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because
Davis 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 lawsuit 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). Once the plaintiff 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. Id.
April 3, 2018, the court ordered Davis to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $8.57. (ECF No. 6.) Davis paid that fee
on April 19, 2018. Therefore, the court will grant
Davis's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee (ECF No. 2). Davis must pay the remainder of
the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end
of this order.
Screening the Plaintiff's 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 the
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 for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Davis
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 caused by the defendants 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 Davis'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)).
alleges that he suffers from “[spondylolysis] and grade
I spondylolisthesis, which [are] conditions in which a break
in both sides of the ring allows the body of the vertebra to
slip forward.” (ECF. No. 1 at 2.) He states that
surgery is required in severe cases and that he had two
MRI's to determine whether he needs surgery.
to being transferred to Green Bay Correctional Institution
(GBCI) from Fox Lake Correctional Institution (FLCI), Davis
states that he was scheduled for an appointment to see a
physiatry doctor for his condition and the pain associated
with it per the recommendation of UW neurosurgeon Dr. Mann.
That appointment was cancelled due to Davis's transfer
and flagged for rescheduling upon his arrival at GBCI.
arrived at GBCI, Davis informed defendants Harrispeters and
Lutsey of his condition and that his appointment with a
physiatrist was to be rescheduled. At some point, however, he
was sent to a hospital for another MRI, after which Dr.
Douglas Chyatte recommended that he be ...