UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASON A. BRADEN,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-CV-882-JPS
WISCONSIN COMMUNITY SERVICES and JOHNATHAN ORDER REINKE,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jason A. Braden, an inmate confined at Oakhill Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional and state law rights. ECF No. 1. This Order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens his complaint. 1. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE The 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. Id. § 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 4, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $17.00. Plaintiff paid that fee on August 23, 2023. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this Order. 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 an 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)). 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 Atl. 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 Cnty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and 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 Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff names Wisconsin Community Services and Johnathan Reinke (“Reinke”), SCRAM supervisor, as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Reinke falsely reported to Jefferson County Courts. Id. at 2. Reinke reported that Plaintiff had a positive test result on a bad breath testing unit. Id. at 2. Reinke called Plaintiff and Plaintiff told Reinke he was not drinking that day and would come to the SCAM office to prove it. Id. Plaintiff also offered to go any place to be tested right away. Id. Reinke told Plaintiff he would call him back, but he never did. Id. Instead, Reinke wrote a bad/false report, not caring about his bad equipment. Plaintiff believes this was defamation of character. Id. Wisconsin Community Services/SCRAM and Jefferson County Circuit Court placed Plaintiff on a “SCRAM bracelet” around February 2021 as a condition of bond for Case No. 2021CF000660. Id. at 3. The SCRAM bracelet caused a severe infection on Plaintiff’s right leg. Id. Plaintiff brought this issue to the SCRAM supervisor. Id. A “breath tester” was given and the bracelet was removed. Id. The breath tester was faulty, and the bracelet was placed back on Plaintiff’s left leg. Id. at 3-4. The bracelet again caused a serious infection and scarred Plaintiff’s left leg. Id. at 4. SCRAM was aware and could not provide a good breath tester. Id. Plaintiff’s suffering from the bracelet was intolerable. Id. Bad breath testers caused Plaintiff a loss of employment and false reporting to the court. Id. As a result of the false reporting, the judge gave Plaintiff harsher treatment during sentencing. Id. ProHealth Dr. Hoffman, a dermatologist, reported the injuries and an insurance claim was filed with Afflac. Id. On May 19, 2023, the bracelet was removed. Id. After sentencing in Jefferson County, SCRAM supervisor falsely reported to the court. Id. Plaintiff believes this false reporting was a defamation of character. Id. 2.3 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on a claim against Defendant Wisconsin Community Services. First, it is unclear if Wisconsin Community Services is even a state actor. However, even assuming it is, “[S]tates and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Johnson v. Supreme Court of Ill., 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999). This means that “[n]either the State of Wisconsin nor the State’s Department of Corrections is a proper defendant.” Andreola v. Wisconsin, 171 F. App’x 514, 515 (7th Cir. 2006). As such, as currently pled, the Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed with the Wisconsin Community Services as a defendant. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should include more factual details regarding Wisconsin Community Services. As to Defendant Reinke, the allegations in his complaint may be barred by Heck v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASON A. BRADEN,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-CV-882-JPS
WISCONSIN COMMUNITY SERVICES and JOHNATHAN ORDER REINKE,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jason A. Braden, an inmate confined at Oakhill Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional and state law rights. ECF No. 1. This Order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens his complaint. 1. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE The 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. Id. § 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 4, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $17.00. Plaintiff paid that fee on August 23, 2023. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this Order. 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 an 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)). 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 Atl. 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 Cnty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and 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 Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff names Wisconsin Community Services and Johnathan Reinke (“Reinke”), SCRAM supervisor, as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Reinke falsely reported to Jefferson County Courts. Id. at 2. Reinke reported that Plaintiff had a positive test result on a bad breath testing unit. Id. at 2. Reinke called Plaintiff and Plaintiff told Reinke he was not drinking that day and would come to the SCAM office to prove it. Id. Plaintiff also offered to go any place to be tested right away. Id. Reinke told Plaintiff he would call him back, but he never did. Id. Instead, Reinke wrote a bad/false report, not caring about his bad equipment. Plaintiff believes this was defamation of character. Id. Wisconsin Community Services/SCRAM and Jefferson County Circuit Court placed Plaintiff on a “SCRAM bracelet” around February 2021 as a condition of bond for Case No. 2021CF000660. Id. at 3. The SCRAM bracelet caused a severe infection on Plaintiff’s right leg. Id. Plaintiff brought this issue to the SCRAM supervisor. Id. A “breath tester” was given and the bracelet was removed. Id. The breath tester was faulty, and the bracelet was placed back on Plaintiff’s left leg. Id. at 3-4. The bracelet again caused a serious infection and scarred Plaintiff’s left leg. Id. at 4. SCRAM was aware and could not provide a good breath tester. Id. Plaintiff’s suffering from the bracelet was intolerable. Id. Bad breath testers caused Plaintiff a loss of employment and false reporting to the court. Id. As a result of the false reporting, the judge gave Plaintiff harsher treatment during sentencing. Id. ProHealth Dr. Hoffman, a dermatologist, reported the injuries and an insurance claim was filed with Afflac. Id. On May 19, 2023, the bracelet was removed. Id. After sentencing in Jefferson County, SCRAM supervisor falsely reported to the court. Id. Plaintiff believes this false reporting was a defamation of character. Id. 2.3 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on a claim against Defendant Wisconsin Community Services. First, it is unclear if Wisconsin Community Services is even a state actor. However, even assuming it is, “[S]tates and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Johnson v. Supreme Court of Ill., 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999). This means that “[n]either the State of Wisconsin nor the State’s Department of Corrections is a proper defendant.” Andreola v. Wisconsin, 171 F. App’x 514, 515 (7th Cir. 2006). As such, as currently pled, the Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed with the Wisconsin Community Services as a defendant. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should include more factual details regarding Wisconsin Community Services. As to Defendant Reinke, the allegations in his complaint may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that for a plaintiff to recover damages for an “unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” the plaintiff must prove “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determinations, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 486–87. This rule applies regardless of a plaintiff's release from custody and the unavailability of habeas relief. Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 430 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Heck controls the outcome where a section 1983 claim implies the invalidity of the conviction or the sentence, regardless of the availability of habeas relief.”). Here, it is similarly unclear if Defendant Reinke is a state actor for the purposes of § 1983. Even assuming that he is, however, it appears that Plaintiff may be suggesting that his criminal sentence was based on false information from Defendant Reinke. However, Plaintiff’s allegations against Reinke are unclear and the Court cannot determine whether Reinke’s involvement occurred before or after sentencing and what role that information played in his criminal sentence. As currently pled, the Court does not find that the complaint states a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court will therefore not consider Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. The Court will, however, allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before October 13, 2023. When writing his amended complaint, Plaintiff should provide the Court with enough facts to answer the following questions: (1) Who violated his constitutional rights?; (2) What did each person do to violate his rights?; (3) Where did each person violate his rights?; and (4) When did each person violate his rights? Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not need to be long or contain legal language or citations to statutes or cases, but it does need to provide the Court and each Defendant with notice of what each Defendant allegedly did or did not do to violate his rights. The Court is enclosing a copy of its amended complaint form and instructions. Plaintiff must list all of the defendants in the caption of his amended complaint. He should use the spaces on pages two and three to allege the key facts that give rise to the claims he wishes to bring, and to describe which defendants he believes committed the violations that relate to each claim. If the space is not enough, Plaintiff may use up to five additional sheets of paper. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056 (7th Cir. 1998). In Duda, the appellate court emphasized that in such instances, the “prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the amended pleading.” Id. at 1057 (citation omitted). If the amended complaint is received, it will become the operative complaint in this action, and the Court will screen it in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 3. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, ECF No. 2, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint fails to state a claim; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this Order on or before October 13, 2023. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will dismiss this case based on his failure to state a claim in his original complaint and will issue him a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner amended complaint form and a copy of the guides entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro Se Litigants’ Common Questions,” along with this Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect from his institution trust account the $333.00 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this case. If Plaintiff is transferred to another county, state, or federal institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order along with his remaining balance to the receiving institution; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Plaintiff is confined. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of September, 2023. BY THE COURT: \\ AV ye RO OEY fa J.P. st aueller U.S. District Judge
Page 7 of 8
Plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions shall submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. Prisoner E-Filing is mandatory for all inmates at Columbia Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities, or who have been released from custody, will be required to submit all correspondence and legal material to: Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin 362 United States Courthouse 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. If mail is received directly to the Court’s chambers, IT WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER AND WILL NOT BE FILED IN THE CASE. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely file any brief, motion, response, or reply may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED ADDRESS TO THE COURT AND MAIL IS RETURNED TO THE COURT AS UNDELIVERABLE, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.