Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCoy v. Colon

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

July 24, 2018

JAMES CORTEZ MCCOY, Plaintiff,
v.
PEDRO COLON, KIM SCHOEPP, PAUL G. BONNESON, CAITLIN H. FIRER, JULIA E. VOSPER, MARGARET KUNISCH, BARRY PHILLIPS, TYRONE ST. JUNIOR, and KATHERINE GINSBERG, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2), SCREENING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING CASE

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The plaintiff, who was confined at the Milwaukee County Jail when he filed this case, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights.[1] This decision resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1.

         I. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee (Dkt. No. 2)

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because the plaintiff 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, if 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 the plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id.

         On April 12, 2018, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $25.53. Dkt. No. 5. The plaintiff paid that fee on April 27, 2018. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee in the manner explained at the end of this order.

         II. Screening the Plaintiff's Complaint

         A. Federal Screening Standard

         The law 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).

         To 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).

         To 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, 106 (1976)).

         B. The Plaintiff's Allegations

         The plaintiff alleges that on January 3, 2018, defendants Judge Pedro Colon, Assistant District Attorney Kim Schoepp, Attorney Caitlin H. Firer, and Attorney Paul Bonneson “lied & told me it's (2) sets of probable cause & judicial determination sheets that I'll get in my criminal case.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3. The plaintiff states that he had one copy, which was not endorsed, in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. The plaintiff alleges that Paul B. (presumably defendant Paul Bonneson) told him he would get the other copy from defendant Schoepp, “which [defendant] Commissioner Julia E. Vosper illegally signed on the date the 1st, should've been endorsed 7/11/16 which is not the truth.” Id. at 3-4. Defendants Commissioner Barry Phillips, Tyrone St. Jr., and Katherine Ginsberg allegedly violated the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights when they proceeded with the case when the probable cause and judicial determination sheet wasn't endorsed; he does not explain who defendants Street and Ginsberg are. Id. at 4. “To make things short & clear my 1st copy of my probable cause & judicial determination sheet wasn't endorsed & they had Commissioner Julia E. Vosper forge a signature.” Id.

         The plaintiff alleges that on October 2, 2017, defendants Judge Colon, Schoepp, and Firer violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when they lied and stated that a deputy told them he refused to go to trial that day. Id. The plaintiff allegedly asked defendant Judge Colon which deputy said that, but Judge Colon would not tell him. Id. The plaintiff also alleges that defendant Judge Colon stated that the plaintiff was incompetent (the plaintiff says that he is not), and denied him his right to represent himself in court. Id.

         For relief, the plaintiff seeks “[t]o have my case started over in summary if need be or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.