United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
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
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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) 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)).
The Plaintiff's Allegations
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
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 ...