United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Antwan Bogan, who is confined at the Milwaukee County Jail
and who is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his
civil rights. This decision resolves Bogan's motion for
leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens
court has jurisdiction to resolve Bogan's motion to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee and to screen the
complaint in light of his 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
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because
Bogan was incarcerated 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 him to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over
time through deductions from his prisoner account.
March 19, 2019, the court ordered that Bogan would not be
required to pay an initial partial filing fee, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(4), and it gave him until April 9, 2019, to
voluntarily dismiss the case. (ECF No. 7.) Bogan has not
voluntarily dismissed this case. Therefore, the court will
grant Bogan's motion for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee. He must pay the filing fee over
time in the manner explained at the end of this order.
Screening the 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 such 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) he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the
defendant was 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 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,
was confined at the Milwaukee County House of Corrections
(HOC) at all times relevant. He sues thirty-three HOC staff
members as well as an unspecified No. of John and Jane Doe
correctional officers for “blindly following unjust
orders and abuse of human, constitutional rights.” (ECF
No. 1 at 3.)
alleges that on November 17, 2018, he filed a grievance
petitioning all HOC staff “to heed W.D.O.C. 350.24(3)
Discipline as to what must be done to inmates whom break the
rules and found guilty of doing so
[sic].” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Bogan's grievance
the unlawful policy of HOC staff … denying all inmates
their constitutional basic rights of: the right to correspond
with family, friends, loved ones, access to the court, media,
and paper, pencils, stamps, stamp envelopes, send out mail:
personal or legal and get incoming mail; the right to
properly groom by denying me: A. Bogan, and other inmates the
right to have face towels to wash with, sheets on our raw
mattresses, the right [to] a clean cell or cleaning supplies
and even our property like pictures of family, friends, loved
ones, drawings, books or other basic necessities.
(Id. at 5.)
HOC's disciplinary unit (cell blocks A-Z, B-Z, O-Z), HOC
staff deny inmates' requests for things like indigent
postage and hygiene, and “law library.” (ECF No.
1 at 5.) These requested items “are seen as privileges
and intentionally, recklessly disregarded to confuse,
disorient inmates, sometimes causing further mental damage
like: stress, anxiety, depression, suicidal or homicidal
thoughts toward staff and oneself, or other inmates.”
(Id. at 5-6.) Sometimes when staff bring ...