United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles Crenshaw, a pro se inmate at Green Bay
Correctional Institution (GBCI), filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights by failing to timely allow him to place
a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) call against his
cellmate for walking around their shared cell in his briefs
and sleeping in nude, which caused Crenshaw to later suffer
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This matter is before
the court on Crenshaw's motion to proceed without
prepayment of the civil case filing fee (ECF No. 2) and for
screening of his complaint (ECF No. 1).
court has jurisdiction to resolve Crenshaw's motion to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and to screen
the complaint in light of Crenshaw's consent to the full
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Wisconsin
Department of Justice's limited consent to the exercise
of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Wisconsin Department
of Justice and this court.
Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act (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 the prisoner pay an initial partial
filing fee. On January 17, 2019, the court ordered Crenshaw
to pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.41. (ECF No. 6.)
Crenshaw paid the fee on February 7, 2019. As such, the court
will grant his motion. Crenshaw will be required to pay the
remainder of the $350 filing fee over time in the manner
described at the end of this Order.
Screening 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, 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 the 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 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). The court is
obliged to give a 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)).
Allegations in the Complaint
alleges that on November 15, 2017, while being housed at
GBCI, he was placed in a two-man cell with Tony Chaney. He
says on that same day, he observed Chaney walking around in
his briefs and then sleeping in the nude. Crenshaw states
that he was disturbed by these actions. So, on November 16,
2017, he asked a prison official at the north secure work
station if he could make a PREA call. He was told to talk
with Sergeant Reyes.
did and asked Sergeant Reyes if he could place a PREA call.
Sergeant Reyes told Crenshaw to “lock in, and he would
get [Crenshaw] the PREA call.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
However, Sergeant Reyes never returned and thus Crenshaw did
not make the call.
November 17, 2017, Crenshaw states he spoke with Sergeant
Reyes again about the PREA call. Sergeant Reyes said he would
bring Crenshaw the phone, but he never did.
continuing to be subjected to Chaney's walking around in
his briefs and sleeping naked, Crenshaw informed officer John
Doe 1 on November 18, 2017, of his request for a PREA call.
The officer responded that ...