United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ANTHONY K. IT, Plaintiff,
THOMAS MICHLOWSKI, ERICA KOERE, LUKE ALLEN, GEORGE MONESE, OFFICER KESKE, JOHN AND JANE DOES, and WARDEN NOVAK, Defendants.
Adelman United States District Judge.
Anthony It, who is representing himself, filed a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants
violated his civil rights. He also filed a motion for leave
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. That law allows an incarcerated plaintiff
to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case
filing fee as long as he meets certain conditions. One of
those conditions is that the plaintiff pay an initial partial
filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
April 12, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge David Jones (the judge
assigned to the case at that time) ordered the plaintiff to
pay an initial partial filing fee of $0.13. The plaintiff
paid the fee on April 23, 2019. Accordingly, I will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the fee over time in
the manner described at the end of this order.
the PLRA, I am 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). I 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).
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 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).
obliged to give 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,
plaintiff alleges that, on February 14, 2019, while he was
housed at Columbia Correctional Institution, he was given an
injection of Paliperidone, which is an antipsychotic
medication. According to the plaintiff, the medication was to
last thirty days. A week later, on February 21, the plaintiff
transferred to the Wisconsin Resource Center. The plaintiff
asserts that defendant Dr. Thomas Michlowski ordered he be
given another injection.
to the plaintiff, defendant patient care technician Lucas
Allen came to his cell door and informed him he needed to
receive an injection. The plaintiff asserts that he told
Allen that he had received an injection a week earlier and
that he did not feel comfortable getting another injection.
Allen allegedly told the plaintiff he had no choice; officers
would make him take the medication by force.
plaintiff states that defendant nurse Erica Koere then came
to his door and told him that there was no record of him
receiving the medication a week earlier. She allegedly
informed him that the records showed he had refused the
medication on February 18, 2019. The plaintiff told Koere
that he had received an injection a week earlier, and he did
not want another injection because he was afraid of the side
effects. The plaintiff alleges that defendant officer Keske
negligently recorded in his medical records that he had
refused his medication.
then returned to the plaintiff's cell and allegedly told
him officers were organizing a cell extraction team so the
medication could be administered by force. The plaintiff
states that he did not want to get hurt or get a conduct
report, so he agreed to get the injection. He insisted they
document that he tried to refuse the injection because he had
received an injection a week before. According to the
plaintiff, officers and supervisors came to his door. The
plaintiff states that he was handcuffed and Koere injected
him with the antipsychotic medication.
plaintiff asserts that, as a result of receiving the second
injection, he suffered from involuntary shaking of his head
and neck, soreness in his right arm, nausea, and migraines.
The plaintiff states that the side effects lasted for five
plaintiff alleges that “Nurse Koere and Doctor
Michlowski failed to correctly review [his] health care
record-which would have showed that [he] received the
injection on the 14th of February 2019.” Docket No. 1
at 5. He also asserts that Allen violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights when he threatened to use force to
administer the medication. He seeks to sue Dr. George Monese
for failing to order the proper treatment after meeting with
the plaintiff on January 29, 2019. He also alleges that John
and Jane Doe policy makers violated his rights by allowing
correctional officers to administer medications. Finally, he
alleges that defendant Warden Novak is liable for failing to
properly train officers on documenting medication refusals.
plaintiff fails to state a claim against the defendants in
connection with his allegations that he was prematurely
prescribed and administered a second injection of
antipsychotic medication. To state a federal claim, the
plaintiff must allege that the defendants knew he faced a
substantial risk of serious harm and were deliberately
indifferent to that risk. Knight v. Wiseman, 590
F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009). Mere negligence by a prison
official is not sufficient to state a claim. Id.
plaintiff acknowledges that, after he told Allen he had
received an injection a week earlier, Koere checked his
medical files to confirm whether his assertions were
accurate. She told him that the records did not show that he
had received an injection; rather, they indicated that he had
refused the injection. The plaintiff asserts that he told her
the records were incorrect, but prison staff are not required
to believe everything an inmate says, especially if the staff
member investigates the accuracy of the prisoner's
assertions. See Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 713
(7th Cir. 2014). None of the plaintiff's allegations
suggest that the defendants had any ...