United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2),
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING THE
PAMELA PEPPER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. Dkt.
No. 1. This order resolves the plaintiff's motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, dkt.
no. 2, and screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1.
THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF
THE FILING FEE
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to
this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he
filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915. The law allows a
court to let an incarcerated plaintiff proceed with his case
without prepaying the civil case filing fee if he meets
certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the
plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays the initial partial
filing fee, the court may allow the plaintiff to pay the
balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions
from his prisoner account. Id.
February 22, 2019, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $13.41. Dkt. No. 5. The court
received that fee on March 14, 2019. The court will grant the
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee and allow him to pay the
remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained
at the end of this order.
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
PLRA requires the court 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 if the
plaintiff 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.
state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, “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 under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must
allege that 1) someone deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and 2) whoever
deprived him of that right was acting under color of state
law. Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d
824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. of N.
Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see
also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The
court gives a pro se plaintiff's allegations,
“however inartfully pleaded, ” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
7, 2017, the plaintiff was an inmate in the restricted
housing unit at the Milwaukee County Jail. Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
At that time, defendant David Clarke was the sheriff of
Milwaukee County. Id. The plaintiff says that
William Little and CO Dantzler were correctional officers at
the jail. Id.
11:09 a.m. on June 7, 2017, Dantzler woke up the plaintiff
and told him it was time for “his rec and
shower.” Id. at 2. Dantzler put the plaintiff
in arm restraints, after which the plaintiff was let out of
his cell; the plaintiff's cell was on the upper level of
the unit. Id. at 2-3. Dantzler assisted the
plaintiff to the lower level, where the shower area and rec
area were located. Id. at 3. Dantzler gave the
plaintiff towels and clothes, and the plaintiff got into the
shower with shackles on. Id.
finishing his shower, the plaintiff went upstairs to drop off
his towels. Id. When he tried to go back downstairs
to finish his rec time, he “slipped and fell injuring
his arm hip and back.” Id. The plaintiff
states that he tried to get up but couldn't due to the
a couple minutes, ” Little came in and told the
plaintiff that “there had been a medical emergency
called.” Id. at 3-4. “A couple minutes
later, ” medical staff arrived. Id. at 4. They
evaluated the plaintiff and determined that he couldn't
walk to the infirmary; another officer helped the plaintiff
onto a back board and took him to the Health Services Unit,
where “it was determined that the plaintiffs injuries
were great enough that [he] would ...