United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
RICKEY J. HARRIS, III, Plaintiff,
DAVID CLARKE, Defendant.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Rickey J. Harris, who is representing himself, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion for leave
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
applies to this case because Harris was incarcerated when he
filed his complaint. This order resolves Harris's motion
and screens his complaint.
for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
PLRA gives courts discretion to allow prisoners to proceed
with their lawsuits without prepaying the $350 filing fee as
long as they comply with certain requirements. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. One of those requirements is that they pay an
initial partial filing fee. On May 29, 2018, the court
ordered Harris to pay an initial partial filing fee of
$16.83. Harris paid that fee on July 9, 2018. Accordingly,
the court will grant his motion to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing
fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this
of the Complaint
court is required 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 or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised 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. §
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to
relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To state a claim for
relief 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
deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons
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).
court is obliged to give the plaintiff'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 was an inmate at the Milwaukee County Jail in
February 2017. Just prior to being booked into the jail for a
non-drug-related offense two John Doe sheriff deputies
allegedly instructed Harris to change into jail clothing.
Harris asserts that he complied with the order and changed in
a holding cell while one of the deputies watched through the
cell door window.
changing, Harris states that he was handcuffed and escorted
by the two deputies to the shower area. One of the deputies
allegedly asked him if he had anything illegal on or in his
body. Harris replied that he did not, asked why he was being
searched, and asked if he could speak to a sergeant. The
deputy allegedly told Harris that he could speak to a
sergeant after the search.
to Harris, one of the deputies put on latex gloves and
ordered Harris to lower his pants and underwear to his knees
and squat. The deputy then allegedly used a flashlight to
spread open Harris's buttocks. Harris was again denied
his request to speak to a sergeant.
thereafter, Harris spoke with two Milwaukee County
detectives/ investigators and explained to them what had
happened. According to Harris, one of the detectives told him
that it was wrong for the deputies to strip search him
without authorization. They allegedly suggested that he file
a grievance, which he did that same night. Harris left the