United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE HIS MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT.
NO. 8), SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff is a state prisoner who is representing himself. He
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that
the defendants violated his civil rights by failing to deal
adequately with his mental health conditions. Dkt. No. 1.
This decision resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. no. 2,
and his motion to appoint counsel, dkt. no. 8, 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 in custody when he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. §1915. The law allows a court to give an
incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with his case
without prepaying the 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).
court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing
fee of $6.19. Dkt. No. 6. The court received that fee on
March 29, 2018. The court will grant the plaintiff's
motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, and
will allow the plaintiff to pay the remainder of the filing
fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this
Screening the Plaintiff's Amended 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 the 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) that person
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 alleges-and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
(DOC) Inmate Locator Service (https://appsdoc.wi.gov)
confirms-that he entered the Wisconsin prison system in 2011.
Dkt. No. 1 at 3. The plaintiff says that he has an extensive
history of mental illness and disorder, and claims that the
DOC knew this. Id. Before going to prison, a court
had ordered the plaintiff to undergo mental health treatment.
Id. On November 3, 2011 (while the plaintiff was at
Dodge Correctional Institution, https://appsdoc.wi.gov),
defendant Cara A. Schmidt conducted a mental health screening
for the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff alleges that
Schmidt did not adequately screen him during the intake
released the plaintiff (from Oakhill Correctional
Institution, https://appsdoc.wi.gov) three years later, in
November 2014. Id. The plaintiff says that the DOC
failed to treat “a serious need and disease . . .
.” Id. He alleges that this failure led to his
arrest seven days after his release, followed by criminal
charges. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff says that
defendant Jane Doe social worker at Oakhill failed to detect
that the DOC was releasing “an inmate with a known
mental disease in the community to shift [sic] for himself,
without medication, treatment, [or] the mean[s] to acquire
medication.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff alleges
that this same Jane Doe defendant failed to notify
Supervision Authority about his extensive mental health
plaintiff says that on April 19, 2017, he “was deemed
not guilty by reason of mental disease.” Id.
The Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Program shows that on
November 19, 2014-about a week after the DOC released him
from Oakhill-the State filed a complaint against the
defendant in Walworth County Circuit Court, alleging
first-degree intentional homicide, strangulation and
suffocation and false imprisonment. State v. Jason L.
Grant, No. 2014CF000471, Walworth County Circuit Court,
available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov. That docket shows
that on November 18, 2017, the plaintiff entered a plea of