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),
SCREENING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING CASE
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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. 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.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Fee (Dkt. No. 2)
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.
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.
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 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 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
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.
relief, the plaintiff seeks “[t]o have my case started
over in summary if need be or ...