United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE
Mark Anthony Adell, who is currently serving a state prison
sentence at Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI) and
representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. On
April 3, 2019, the court dismissed this action without
prejudice for failure to prosecute under Civil Local Rule
41(c) because Adell failed to timely file a certified trust
account statement for the six months preceding the filing of
the complaint. The court gave Adell until April 24, 2019, to
move to reopen the case and provide the required trust
account statement. Adell has since filed a motion to reverse
the court's order of dismissal, which this court
construes as a motion to reopen, and a certified copy of his
trust account statement. The court will grant the motion to
reopen, waive the partial filing fee, and screen his
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of the full
filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the
full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Adell has filed a certified copy
of his prison trust account statement for the six-month
period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). It appears that
Adell lacks the funds to pay an initial partial filing fee.
Therefore, the court will waive the initial partial filing
fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), and grant Adell's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
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. §
1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex
rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997).
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, the 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). The
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “that
is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court accepts
the factual allegations as true and liberally construes them
in the plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, the
complaint's allegations “must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
OF THE COMPLAINT
complaint, which totals twenty-three pages with sixty-five
pages of attachments, details his efforts to use the inmate
complaint review system (ICRS) at WCI to redress an issue he
had with his medications. He alleges that he submitted an
inmate complaint regarding his medications and that Inmate
Complaint Examiner (ICE) Tonia Moon refused to accept the
complaint due to its failure to identify the specific
medications at issue. Adell resubmitted the complaint with
the belief that he addressed Moon's concerns, but Moon
confiscated it, claiming that Adell had failed to follow her
previous directive. Dkt. No. 1-1 Ex. E. Adell then
“assum[ed] Moon's confiscation could be construed
as a final decision, albeit by proxy, ” and took steps
to prepare a writ of certiorari action in state court, which
needed to be filed within forty-five days. Dkt. No. 1 at
encountered several roadblocks in his attempt to prepare and
timely file a certiorari action. First, he received a cell
confinement penalty that limited his access to the law
library absent a compelling reason such as a court-ordered
deadline. Requests for library access were reviewed by Nevin
Webster, WCI's librarian. Adell submitted an access
request on January 17, 2019, which Webster rejected on the
basis that no final adverse decision had occurred. Dkt. No.
1-1 Ex. D. Adell subsequently submitted second and third
access requests. Webster rejected the second request for the
same reason as the first and did not respond to the third
request. Id. Ex. C. Adell later filed two additional
access requests, the first of which was denied because the
requested date was already scheduled and the second of which
was denied because no time was available during the requested
week. Id. Exs. 2, 9.
Adell's attempts to complain about Webster's
decisions to deny him access to the law library were
fruitless. On January 27, 2019, Adell filed an inmate
complaint challenging Webster's adverse decisions, which
J. Muenchow, another ICE at WCI, refused to accept because
Adell could only file one complaint per week. Id.
Exs. H, I, N. Muenchow did not return the January 27th
complaint until February 5th. Also on February 5th, Adell
wrote to WCI warden Brian Foster to complain about Moon and
Muenchow's handling of his complaints, but Foster
determined that no mishandling occurred. Id. Ex. 3.
Adell learned on February 11th that his complaint regarding
library access was accepted for review on February 8th.
Adell experienced delays in receiving the documentation he
submitted along with his complaint against Webster. Adell
alleges that Moon did not promptly scan and return the
attachments to the complaint but rather said, in response to
multiple inquiries from Adell, that she would keep them until
she was done with them. Id. Ex. 5. On February 19th,
Adell again wrote Foster, and Foster referred Adell's
concerns to Moon, who again told Adell he would receive the
papers when his complaint was answered, but she also stated
that “they were returned 2/22.” Id. Ex.
10. Adell alleges that he received backlogged complaints that
were not accepted but not the documents related to his
complaint against Webster. Adell wrote to Foster to complain,
but Foster noted that his complaint was still in the process
of being investigated. Id. Ex. 11. Adell alleges
that the documents he sought were returned on March 2nd in
response to his correspondence to Moon and Foster.
claims that these roadblocks impeded his ability to timely
prepare and file a writ of certiorari action in state court
to challenge the denial of his inmate complaint related to
his medications. Based on these allegations, Adell seeks to
bring claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs,
denial of access to the courts, retaliation against First
Amendment protected activity, and civil conspiracy.