United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD PARTIES (DKT. NO. 8),
SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A AND
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Will Haywood, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution
who is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendant violated his
civil rights. This decision resolves the plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee,
dkt. no. 2, and his motion to add parties, dkt. no. 8, and
screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee
(Dkt. No. 2)
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because the plaintiff was a prisoner when he filed his
complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(h). The PLRA
allows the court to give a prisoner plaintiff the ability to
proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the
prisoner must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b)(1). He then must pay the balance of the $350
filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner
August 13, 2019, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $20.40. Dkt. No. 7. A little
more than a week later, the court received a payment of $50
toward the filing fee. The court will grant the
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying
the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee
over time in the manner explained at the end of this order.
Motion to Add Parties (Dkt. No. 8)
a month after the plaintiff filed his complaint, he filed a
motion to add parties. Dkt. No. 8. He would like to add
“the food services administrator Ms. Wilson[, ] the
security director Mr. Meli[, ] the security supervisor Mr.
Lt. Immerfall and the warden” as defendants.
Id. The plaintiff explains that defendant Streekstra
works for Wilson, and Immerfall works for Meli, who works for
the warden. Id. The plaintiff asserts that
“there are a level of chain that [he] need[s] to
plaintiff has explained that he wants to add these
individuals as defendants because they are supervisors. The
fact that they are supervisors, on its own, is not enough for
the plaintiff to state a claim against them under §1983.
Section 1983 requires that an individual be personally
involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Colbert
v. City of Chi., 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017)
(citations omitted). The only time a supervisor is liable for
a subordinate's misconduct is if the supervisor directs
or consents to the misconduct. Gentry v. Duckworth,
65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). For example, the supervisor
“must know about the [supervisee's] conduct and
facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind
eye” for fear of what the supervisor might see.
Id. (quoting Jones v. City of Chi., 856
F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir.1988)). “[S]upervisors who are
merely negligent in failing to detect and prevent
subordinates' misconduct are not liable.”
Jones, 856 F.2d at 992.
court will deny the plaintiff's motion to add these
Screening the Complaint
Federal Screening Standard
the PLRA, the court must screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief from 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
prisoner 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.
determining whether the complaint states a claim, the court
applies the same standard that it applies when considering
whether to dismiss a case under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d
714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Booker-El v.
Superintendent, Ind. State Prison, 668 F.3d 896, 899
(7th Cir. 2012)). To state a claim, a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). The complaint must contain enough facts, accepted as
true, to “state a claim for relief 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 for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a
plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right
secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States,
and that whoever deprived him of that right was acting under
the color of state law. D.S. v. E. Porter Cty. Sch.
Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing
Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824,
827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The court construes liberally
complaints filed by plaintiffs who are representing
themselves and holds such complaints to a ...