Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Hafman

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 21, 2019

ANTWAN BOGAN, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL HAFMAN, et al., Defendants.



         Plaintiff Antwan Bogan, who is confined at the Milwaukee County Jail, filed a pro se complaint alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was confined at the Milwaukee County House of Correction. On May 9, 2019, the court screened the complaint, determined that it did not state a plausible claim for relief, and gave Bogan an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9 at 6-9.) Bogan has filed an amended complaint, which the court will now screen under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         1. 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 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).

         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. 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, 106 (1976)).

         2. Amended Complaint's Allegations

         Bogan alleges that administration and correctional officers at the Milwaukee County House of Correction (HOC) violated his constitutional rights. He is suing Michael Hafman, Hernandez, HOC Administration, CO I Raymark, CO Curd, Capt. Keys, Lt. Tartdiff, and Sgt. Wilder. Bogan describes two separate incidents.

         First, on November 9, 2018, Bogan refused a tuberculosis shot from medical staff because they were unable to tell him what chemical compounds made up the shot and explain to him how it worked. Bogan was curious as to how medical staff would want to administer him a shot but could not explain its value or health potential. He refused the shot on “moral grounds” and knew that HOC staff could quarantine him for refusing it. Defendant Lt. Tartdiff ordered that Bogan be taken to “O-2 med. Lockdown.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Bogan was deprived of all property, except one Bible, a stack of papers, one deodorant, and one toothbrush. Defendant Sgt. Wilder took Bogan to O-2. When Bogan requested his property, Wilder explained that, per HOC policy, he would not receive anything in the “hole” until he complied with the shot. Bogan was confined in O-2 for four to five days without property, until he “was forced to take the shot to get his property back.” (Id. at 4.) He “was placed in the cold cell with one blue blanket, no sheets, no mail incoming or outgoing, legal or personal, no toothpaste, soap, books, absolutely nothing, all to force his compliance to accept a TB shot to which he knew nothing of.” (Id.)

         Regarding the second incident, on February 23, 2019, defendant CO Curd sent Bogan to cell block A-2 “for nothing” because CO Curd assumed Bogan was causing a disturbance. Defendant Capt. Keys authorized defendant CO Curd to unlawfully deprive Bogan of all of his property and send it to the property room until his release from the hole more than five days later. While in the hole, Bogan

was unlawfully deprived of his right to correspond with family, friends, loved ones, denied access to his personal or legal mail, the courts, media, law library, books, paper, pencils, photos, stamps, clean sheets, any form of hygiene material and intentionally placed in an unclean cell where other inmates had urinated on walls, and raw mattresses, inmate have ejaculated semen on walls, mattresses and have thrown feces all over the cells to which staff are denied to allow inmate to clean cells regularly, maybe once a month[.]

(Id. at 4-5.)

         Placement in the hole caused Bogan physical and mental health problems, including thoughts of suicide. He seeks an immediate stop to this criminal act and $10, 000 from each defendant.

         3. ...

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.