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.

Strong v. City of Appleton Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

July 25, 2018

DENNIS STRONG, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF APPLETON POLICE DEPARTMENT, RYAN FERGOT, JORDAN WOELFEL, and WISCONSIN MUNICIPAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendants.

         ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO 2), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE (DKT. NO. 6), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND RELIEF (DKT. NO. 8), AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The plaintiff, a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. Dkt. No. 1. This decision resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1, and resolves two other motions he filed, dkt. nos. 6 and 8. The court dismisses this case without prejudice because it is premature.

         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 in custody 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.

         The court waived the initial partial filing fee. Dkt. No. 4. The court will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and will allow him to pay the $350 filing fee over time 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 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) someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the person who allegedly deprived him of that right 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 has sued the City of Appleton Police Department, Appleton Police Officers Ryan Fergot and Jordan Woelfel, and the Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Company. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He alleges that on March 21, 2017, the Appleton Police Department-specifically, defendant Woelfel- arrested him for alleged unlawful acts complained of by someone named “Willard.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1, 9. The next day, the plaintiff made his initial appearance before the court in State v. Strong, Outagamie County Case Number 17CM282. Id.

         The plaintiff alleges that Officer Fergot led the criminal investigation for Case 17CM282. Id. Fergot allegedly interviewed Willard, and had Officer Michael Chevremont (not a defendant) interview other material witnesses. Id. The plaintiff alleges that “[t]he exculpatory-impeachment material value of Chevremont's trial testimony was ...


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.