Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bogan v. Barrett

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 15, 2019

ANTWAN BOGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BARRETT, JOHN CHISHOLM, MICHAEL SCHINDHELM, VIRGINIA STULLER, and JUSTICE POINT, Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER

          William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge

         Plaintiff Antwan Bogan, who is representing himself, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights and seeking his immediate release from custody, criminal investigation of the defendants and most of the Milwaukee County system of justice, and $500, 000 from each defendant. This decision resolves Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and screens his complaint.

         This case was previously assigned to Magistrate Judge William Duffin. However, because not all parties have had the opportunity to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was reassigned to a District Judge for entry of this order dismissing the case.

         A. Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because Plaintiff 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, as long as he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is that Plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee. § 1915(b). Once 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. Id.

         On March 25, 2019, Judge Duffin ordered that Plaintiff would not be required to pay an initial partial filing fee. Dkt. No. 6. The court ordered Plaintiff to notify the court by April 15, 2019, if he wanted to voluntarily dismiss this case. Id. Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed the case. Therefore, the court will grant his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. He must pay the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this order.

         B. Screening Plaintiff's Complaint

         1. Federal Screening Standard

         The law 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 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. § 1915A(b).

         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 a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         To 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. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. 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, 106 (1976)).

         2. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 2015, Milwaukee Police Department officers arrested him without a warrant. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Four days later, Plaintiff appeared in court with his attorney before Commissioner J.C. Moore. Id. Plaintiff noticed critical due process omissions in the original CR-215 probable cause complaint form. Id. at 2-3. He states that the form should have been endorsed by a neutral and impartial judge or commissioner on March 3, 2015, and filed with the Clerk of Court, defendant John Barrett. Id. at 3. The CR-215 complaint “lacked any endorsement or jurisdiction by way of official time stamp, or affixed criminal case number upon its face, ” which made it deficient and left the court without personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff. Id.

         Despite these deficiencies, the court authorized the filing of the unlawful criminal complaint and defendant John Barrett provided a criminal case number. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff noticed a handwritten criminal case number on the complaint “and again initiating a criminal procedure for a criminal trial without due process and these omissions went from simple, harmless mistakes to a city and possibly a statewide conspiracy 101 to intentionally, with reckless disregard for the state or U.S. constitutional law deprive ‘mainly' poverty ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.