United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
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.
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.
Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing
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.
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
Screening Plaintiff's 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 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).
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. 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,
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.
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 ...