United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Shawn Beasley, who is currently serving a state prison
sentence at Waupun Correctional Institution and representing
himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter
comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen
to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of the full
filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the
full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a certified
copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month
period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), and has been
assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $22.85.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying
the filing fee will be granted.
of the Complaint
court is 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).
The court 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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex
rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997).
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, 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). The complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter “that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court accepts the factual
allegations as true and liberally construes them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 651 (7th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, the complaint's
allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
of the Complaint
4:00 p.m. on July 17, 2018, Plaintiff alleges Correctional
Officer Pach, under the direction of Lieutenant Immerfall,
conducted a strip search of him. During the search, Pach
allegedly told Plaintiff to bend over at the waist and spread
his buttocks. Because he felt uncomfortable with bending over
at the waist and spreading his buttocks, Plaintiff chose to
squat down instead and spread his buttocks. In response to
Plaintiff's actions, Immerfall purportedly ordered
Plaintiff to bend over at the waist and spread his buttocks
and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in
him being tasered. Plaintiff followed Immerfall's
command, and states that after standing back up, Immerfall
tased him at the same time Pach and another officer tackled
him, wrestling him to the ground. While the two correctional
officers restrained Plaintiff, Immerfall allegedly tased him
again in the back of his right leg. Once restrained with hand
cuffs and leg restraints, Immerfall directed Pach to conduct
an anal cavity search of Plaintiff that Pach proceeded to do.
Although Plaintiff's complaint describes two searches, it
appears that the second description is duplicative,
describing the same events again. See Dkt. No. 1 at
alleges that Immerfall gave false statements in his conduct
reports following these events, when he reported that
Plaintiff had a white object stored between his buttocks and
that when Plaintiff initially squatted down he grabbed the
white object with his left hand and proceeded to place it in
his mouth and swallow it. Based on a strong odor of marijuana
allegedly emanating from Plaintiff's mouth, Immerfall
stated in his report that he believed the white object
contained marijuana. Plaintiff also alleges that Immerfall
covered up the false statements in his conduct report by not
ordering an intoxicant test to see if in fact there was
marijuana in Plaintiff's system as a result of swallowing
the white object.
Security Director Anthony Meli, Plaintiff alleges that Meli
contributed to Immerfall's cover up by not ordering an
intoxicants test after Plaintiff swallowed the white object
and by not ordering any medical care for Plaintiff in
response to him swallowing an unknown object.
states that as a result of the defendants' actions, he
suffered “major physical injury, mental injury,
emotional distress, cruel and inhuman treatment, [and] cruel
and unusual punishment.” Id. at 12. Plaintiff
seeks a declaratory judgment “stating defendants[']
actions violated Plaintiff['s] Eighth Amendment rights,
” compensatory damages, and injunctive relief
“stating Defendant[s] must pay Plaintiff for all
psychological service[s] and mental bills” once
released and be “allowed to see a[n] outside
psychiatrist while in DOC prison system.” Id.
“‘The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments
which involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,
are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime for
which an inmate was imprisoned, or are totally without
penological justification.'” Whitman v.
Nesic, 368 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2004), as amended
June 4, 2004 (quoting Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821
F.2d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 1987)). Regarding Immerfall's use
of a taser, force that is used “in a good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline” does not run afoul
of the Constitution; only when it is intended
“maliciously and sadistically to cause harm” does
it give rise to a constitutional claim. Lewis v.
Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 476 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)).
Plaintiff alleges that he was tased twice: once after he had
complied with Immerfall's order, and then again when he
was on the floor while two correctional officers attempted to
restrain him. Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6. Taking the allegations in
the complaint as true, which the court must do at this stage,
it does not appear that ...