United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
MICHAEL C. HENDERSON, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM J. POLLARD, et al., Defendants.
Adelman, United States District Judge.
Michael C. Henderson, a state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. The
plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed without prepaying
the filing fee. This order grants that motion and screens his
Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act 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 February 12, 2019, I ordered the plaintiff to
pay an initial partial filing fee of $0.15. The plaintiff
sent a letter stating that he could not pay the initial
partial filing fee from his regular account. The court will
waive the fee and grant the plaintiff's motion. He must
pay the entirety of the filing fee over time in the manner
explained at the end of this order.
of Plaintiff's Complaint
law requires that I 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 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).
proceed 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). I will
give 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,
housed in the Restricted Housing Unit at Green Bay
Correctional Institution, the plaintiff was without running
water for over 8 days. He could not wash his face or wash his
hands after using the toilet. He could not brush his teeth or
take his blood pressure medication. He could not flush his
toilet; it had to be “force flushed.” The
defendants only did it when they felt like it.
plaintiff states that the defendants were well aware that the
water was not working in his cell. At least one of the
defendants stated that they put in a work order. The reports
the defendants provided plaintiff did not reflect they had
done so. Body cameras caught the plaintiff demonstrating that
nothing happened when he pressed the hot and cold water
buttons. The plaintiff had to drink toilet water to stay
hydrated. The defendants made jokes about the water and his
toilet not working.
plaintiff's complaint is deficient in its allegations
about the conditions he experienced while in the Restrictive
Housing Unit because an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claims requires that the defendants affirmatively
knew of the condition(s), including by causing them, and
refuse to take steps to correct it/them. Dixon v.
Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1997). The
plaintiff's complaint lists many defendants, but he does
not tie any specific names to any particular acts or
omissions. I will give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend
his complaint to include factual allegations about who knew
about or created the conditions about which he complains and
did nothing to try to fix them.
plaintiff should refer to this legal standard when amending
his complaint: to make out an Eighth Amendment claim based on
prison conditions, an inmate must show that he has suffered
an objectively, sufficiently serious injury, and that prison
officials inflicted the injury with deliberate indifference.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). An
objectively, sufficiently serious injury is one that deprives
the inmate “the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
347 (1981). Only extreme deprivations will support an Eighth
Amendment claim. Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679,
683 (7th Cir. 2001). Again, I reiterate that ...