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.

Robinson v. Brooks

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

October 17, 2019

CLIFTON ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE BROOKS, Defendant.

          SCREENING ORDER

          WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES

         Plaintiff, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Green Bay 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 (Dkt. No. 2) and his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8). This court will grant Plaintiff leave to file the amended complaint and will proceed to screen the second amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing party to amend pleading with the court's leave “when justice so requires”).

         Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee

         Plaintiff 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 $9.42. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee will be granted.

         Screening of the Complaint

         The 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).

         To 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).

         Allegations of the Complaint

         On March 7, 2019, while working two different kitchen/food service jobs at Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI), Plaintiff began to suffer migraines and blurred vision and requested a lay-in from Defendant. He informed Defendant that his work performance might be affected by his illness. Defendant denied the lay-in request, stating he also was experiencing migraines and was still at work. Following this interaction, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would file a complaint against him with the Inmate Complaint Review System at GBCI. Soon after returning to work, between 8:15 A.M. and 8:35 A.M., Plaintiff fainted in the kitchen dishroom. Plaintiff woke up surrounded by medical staff and correctional officers and was taken to the Health Service Unit at GBCI. Plaintiff suffered back, neck, and head injuries and was prescribed a muscle relaxer and naproxen. He then filed a complaint with the GBCI Inmate Complaint Review System; the complaint was dismissed.

         On about March 9, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendant a request to ask why he had been scheduled for two jobs at the same time on March 7, 2019. Defendant informed Plaintiff it was a “mistake.” On March 25, 2019, Defendant again scheduled Plaintiff for two jobs at the same time. Plaintiff believes that working both the servery and the dishroom put additional strain on his injury. After this shift, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be filing another internal complaint with GBCI, which was later dismissed.

         On March 27, 2019, Defendant again scheduled Plaintiff to work even though the GBCI medical staff placed a “No Work Restriction” on Plaintiff. Plaintiff worked for one hour until Defendant told him he could return to his unit because of the restriction. Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be filing another internal complaint with GBCI because Defendant was aware of the work restriction when he scheduled him to work.

         On another occasion, Plaintiff was ordered to work by a different correctional officer, but was then sent back to his unit due to the work restriction. As Plaintiff walked upstairs to his unit, he felt worsening back pain and fell down one flight of stairs. Health services administered muscle rub.

         After his “No Work Restriction” expired, Plaintiff returned to work. He also informed Defendant that he would be filing another internal complaint with GBCI; this complaint was dismissed. On April 3, 2019, Defendant removed Plaintiff from his work assignment the same day Plaintiff received a conduct report, which disciplined Plaintiff for not attending work one hour and fifteen minutes early. Plaintiff appealed the conduct report and filed another internal complaint against Defendant. Both the complaint and the appeal were dismissed. In addition to the appeal of the conduct report, Plaintiff filed a total of four internal complaints with GBCI.

         The ...


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.