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.

Jew v. Steven

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

December 13, 2019

MARCUS LORENZO JEW, Plaintiff,
v.
S. STEVEN, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER

          NANCY JOSEPH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Marcus Lorenzo Jew, an inmate confined at the Green Bay Correctional Institution (“GBCI”), filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on Jew's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and for screening of his complaint.

         The court has jurisdiction to resolve Jew's motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and to screen the complaint in light of Jew's consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Wisconsin Department of Justice's limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court.

         1. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because Jew 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. Id.

         On August 29, 2019, the court ordered Jew to pay an initial partial filing fee of $15.12. (ECF No. 8.) Jew paid that fee on September 23, 2019. The court will grant Jew'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.[1]

         2. Screening the Complaint

         2.1 Federal Screening Standard

         Under 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. § 1915A(b).

         In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the court applies 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).

         To 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)). The court construes pro se complaints liberally and it holds 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)).

         2.2 Jew's Allegations

         Jew sues Registered Nurse (“RN”) S. Steven, Daniel LaVoie, Health Services Unit (“HSU”) Manager Ms. Lusty, J. Perttu, Complaint Examiner Emily Davidson, Advanced Practice Nurse Prescriber (“APNP”) Peter, and RN Jane Doe. All defendants are alleged to be employees of the GBCI. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

         Jew alleges that he has been trying since April 2019 to get a “proper diagnosis and medication” for a lip condition. Id. On April 26, 2019, RN Steven saw Jew and prescribed him petroleum jelly, but Jew informed Steven that the jelly did not help. Id. On May 20, 2019, Jew saw LaVoie, who referred him to dental care. Id. About a week later, Jew saw RN Jane Doe, who prescribed him “Bacitracin” ointment. Id. at 2-3. On June 6, 2019, Jew saw APNP Peter, who prescribed A&D ointment. Id. A day earlier, on June 5, 2019, Jew wrote HSU Manager Lusty about his ongoing issues with his lips. Id. at 3. About a week later, she responded that he had “seen the doctor[, ] dentist[, ] and most recently the APNP” and had no infection. Id. She advised him to continue ...


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.