United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff Carlos Lindsey, a prisoner at Wisconsin Secure
Prison Facility, alleges that defendants, four prison
psychologists, refused to give him certain types of medical
treatment for his posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Lindsey also moves for expedited screening of
his complaint, Dkt. 5, and for injunctive relief, Dkt. 6.
year, I barred Lindsey from filing most types of cases in
this court because of his filing of false and unauthorized
documents. Lindsey v. Johnston, No. 18-cv-398, Dkt.
47 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2018). Under this sanction, Lindsey
may proceed only on a complaint alleging that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical harm. Id.
Lindsey doesn't make such an allegation, so I will
dismiss his complaint and deny his motions as moot.
following facts are drawn from Lindsey's complaint, Dkt.
1, and attached documents, Dkt. 1-1 and Dkt. 1-2. I accept
them as true for the purposes of considering Lindsey's
complaint under his filing bar.
was diagnosed with PTSD in 2014 by defendant Torria Van
Buren. She noted that Lindsey showed “significant
elevations” regarding “Suicidality (Ideation and
Behavior subscales)” on a psychological examination.
Dkt. 1-1, at 1. Lindsey says that Van Buren didn't
provide him with “any identified medical
treatment” after she made this diagnosis. Dkt. 1, at 2.
But he says she continued to see him in counseling sessions,
clinical monitoring, and segregation rounds.
next event Lindsey describes occurred in 2019, when he asked
defendant Stacey Hoem to provide him with exposure therapy
and cognitive processing therapy. He told her that another
doctor had told him that these types of therapy could be
helpful if he was “invested in the process.” Dkt.
1-2. Hoem responded that Lindsey's investment in the
process was “an important and critical component”
of treatment and told him to write a short essay about why he
was “motivated to change [his] behavior and
thinking.” Id. Lindsey doesn't say whether
he wrote such an essay or, if he did, whether Hoem responded.
says that defendants Schwenn and Cline are also prison
psychologists who have refused to treat his PTSD, but his
complaint includes no specific allegations regarding these
says that defendants' refusal to provide him with the
types of therapy he's requested has caused him
“physical and psychological harm, ” but he
doesn't provide any details regarding these harms. Dkt.
1, at 3. He seeks money damages and an injunction requiring
him to be transferred to a different institution to receive
treatment for his PTSD from different psychological staff.
sanction I imposed against Lindsey allows him to file
complaints alleging that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical harm. This requirement is derived from the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, which allows inmates with three
“strikes” to file in forma pauperis only if they
allege that they are in “imminent danger of serious
physical injury, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This
standard requires an inmate to allege a physical injury that
is imminent or occurring at the time he files his complaint
and to show that the threat or prison condition causing the
injury is “real and proximate.” Ciarpaglini
v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir.
of untreated mental illness can meet this standard,
id. at 331, but Lindsey doesn't allege that he
isn't receiving treatment for his PTSD. In fact, his
complaint says that Van Buren continued to see him in
multiple settings, including counseling sessions, after
diagnosing him with PTSD. And he doesn't allege that Hoem
has refused to give him the treatment he seeks. Hoem asked
him to write a short essay showing that he was
“invested in the process” of healing, and he
doesn't say whether he wrote such an essay or, if he did,
how Hoem responded to it. And regarding Schwenn and Cline,
Lindsey doesn't provide any details regarding his
allegations against them beyond the vague allegations that
they were assigned as his clinicians at some point and that
they refused to treat his PTSD. Such “‘vague and
conclusory' assertions of withheld medical
treatment” don't allege imminent danger.
Id. (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d
1226, 1231 (10th Cir. 1998)).
Lindsey hasn't alleged an imminent danger, I will dismiss
this case under his ...