United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ADELMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Marvell King, an inmate confined at the Green Bay
Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights. This order resolves plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee
and screens his complaint.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because 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 must then pay the balance of the $350 filing
fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account.
September 12, 2019, I ordered plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $3.97. Docket No. 6. Plaintiff paid
that fee on October 15, 2019. I will grant 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.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
Federal Screening Standard
the PLRA, I 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).
I 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. § 1915A(b).
determining whether the complaint states a claim, I apply the
same standard that applies to dismissals 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 this 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)). I construe pro se
complaints liberally and hold them to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cesal,
851 F.3d at 720 (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d
768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)).
plaintiff names as defendants Wisconsin Division of Community
Corrections (“DCC”) Agent Stephanie Olmsted, who
was the plaintiff's probation officer, and Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jonathan Nitti. Docket No. 1
plaintiff alleges that on October 5, 2017, he was arrested
after Ashley Schultz (not a defendant) accused him of
punching her in her eyes. Id. ¶ B.1-2. Deputy
Nick Helstern (not a defendant) responded to a report of a
domestic dispute. Id. ¶ B.1. He observed that
both of Schultz's eyes were swollen and photographed her
injuries. Id. ¶ B.3. Helstern spoke with the
plaintiff at his work, and the plaintiff said that he and
Schultz “had gotten into a verbal argument, but nothing
really more.” Id. Nonetheless, Helstern
arrested the plaintiff and took him into custody.
Id. The plaintiff was charged with substantial
battery and disorderly conduct, both as a repeat offender.
Id. ¶ B.4.
on the plaintiff's charges began January 25, 2018.
Id. A photo of Schultz was introduced showing that
only one eye was swollen. Id. ¶ B.3. Helstern
allegedly gave conflicting information about fixtures on the
wall, which were contradicted by photos the plaintiff's
attorney submitted into evidence. Id. The plaintiff
admitted he pushed Schultz only after she had struck him
“several times in the face.” Id. The
plaintiff alleges that Schultz and her friend changed their
statements several times, differing from earlier statements
they had given to police. Id. ¶ ...