UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ADAM CLARK,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-CV-430-JPS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAMES J. EDWARDS, THOMAS ORDER MORRIS, and MONTREAL ALEXANDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Adam Clark, an inmate confined at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (“MSDF”), filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional 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 March 26, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $14.04. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff paid that fee on April 7, 2025, and Plaintiff paid another $14.04 on April 21, 2025. 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 brings this case against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (“DOC”), James J. Edwards (“Edwards”), Thomas Morris (“Morris”), and Montreal Alexander (“Alexander”). ECF No. 1 at 2. On or about December 22, 2024, Plaintiff was concerned for his safety because he was not getting along with his cellmate. Id. at 8. As a result, Morris placed Plaintiff on temporary lock-up status for his failure to lock in. Id. Morris escorted Plaintiff to the restrictive housing unit (“RHU”) on the fifth floor. Id. Edwards strip searched Plaintiff and dressed him in RHU. Id. On December 23, 2024, at approximately 12:31 a.m., Edwards placed Plaintiff in an observation cell. Id. The observation cell was unclean and unsanitary; the toilet was broken and there were feces and urine on the toilet, floor, and wall. Id. Plaintiff told Edwards about the condition of the cell, but Edwards replied that there was nothing he could do about it. Id. Plaintiff requested cleaning supplies, a different cell, a way to cover the toilet, a working toilet, and a complaint form. Id. Alexander noticed Edwards not completing his rounds and talking to Plaintiff. Id. at 9. Alexander then got on the intercom and told Plaintiff to let his officer finish his rounds. Id. Alexander said, “You don’t need nothing your[sic] in seg now!” Id. Plaintiff told Alexander that the toilet was broken and needed to be cleaned. Id. Alexander responded simply by asking if the toilet had worked where he came from. Id. Plaintiff was later able to get Morris’s attention and Plaintiff told him about the condition of his cell and Alexander’s disrespect. Id. Morris responded that he had not known about the condition of the cell and that Plaintiff would be moved. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was later moved on first shift. Id. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants knew of his skin condition from earlier interactions with him. Id. Despite this knowledge, Defendants placed Plaintiff in the unsanitary cell with a considerable risk of getting an infection. Id. Plaintiff suffered a severe headache, dizziness, severe pain from not being able to use the bathroom, and severe mental and emotional distress. Id. 2.3 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. A prisoner’s claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement is analyzed under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 832, 834 (1994). A prisoner is entitled to live in conditions that do not amount to “punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Detainees are entitled to be confined under humane conditions that provide for their “basic human needs.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ADAM CLARK,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-CV-430-JPS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAMES J. EDWARDS, THOMAS ORDER MORRIS, and MONTREAL ALEXANDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Adam Clark, an inmate confined at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (“MSDF”), filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional 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 March 26, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $14.04. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff paid that fee on April 7, 2025, and Plaintiff paid another $14.04 on April 21, 2025. 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 brings this case against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (“DOC”), James J. Edwards (“Edwards”), Thomas Morris (“Morris”), and Montreal Alexander (“Alexander”). ECF No. 1 at 2. On or about December 22, 2024, Plaintiff was concerned for his safety because he was not getting along with his cellmate. Id. at 8. As a result, Morris placed Plaintiff on temporary lock-up status for his failure to lock in. Id. Morris escorted Plaintiff to the restrictive housing unit (“RHU”) on the fifth floor. Id. Edwards strip searched Plaintiff and dressed him in RHU. Id. On December 23, 2024, at approximately 12:31 a.m., Edwards placed Plaintiff in an observation cell. Id. The observation cell was unclean and unsanitary; the toilet was broken and there were feces and urine on the toilet, floor, and wall. Id. Plaintiff told Edwards about the condition of the cell, but Edwards replied that there was nothing he could do about it. Id. Plaintiff requested cleaning supplies, a different cell, a way to cover the toilet, a working toilet, and a complaint form. Id. Alexander noticed Edwards not completing his rounds and talking to Plaintiff. Id. at 9. Alexander then got on the intercom and told Plaintiff to let his officer finish his rounds. Id. Alexander said, “You don’t need nothing your[sic] in seg now!” Id. Plaintiff told Alexander that the toilet was broken and needed to be cleaned. Id. Alexander responded simply by asking if the toilet had worked where he came from. Id. Plaintiff was later able to get Morris’s attention and Plaintiff told him about the condition of his cell and Alexander’s disrespect. Id. Morris responded that he had not known about the condition of the cell and that Plaintiff would be moved. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was later moved on first shift. Id. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants knew of his skin condition from earlier interactions with him. Id. Despite this knowledge, Defendants placed Plaintiff in the unsanitary cell with a considerable risk of getting an infection. Id. Plaintiff suffered a severe headache, dizziness, severe pain from not being able to use the bathroom, and severe mental and emotional distress. Id. 2.3 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. A prisoner’s claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement is analyzed under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 832, 834 (1994). A prisoner is entitled to live in conditions that do not amount to “punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Detainees are entitled to be confined under humane conditions that provide for their “basic human needs.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones[.]” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1996). To establish a constitutional violation with respect to an inmate’s living conditions, he must be able to demonstrate both: (1) the conditions were objectively so adverse that they deprived him “of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” and (2) the defendants acted with deliberate indifference with respect to the conditions. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). “Life’s necessities include shelter, heat, clothing, sanitation, and hygiene items.” Woods v. Schmeltz, No. 14‐CV‐1336, 2014 WL 7005094, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2014) (citing Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006)); see also Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842–43 (7th Cir. 2013). In conditions of confinement cases challenging the cleanliness of the cell, “[o]ften the decision turns on the extent of the conditions and whether the incarcerated person was provided a way to clean himself or the cell. Behnken v. Green Bay Corr. Inst., No. 24-CV-54-PP, 2024 WL 1285300, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2024); see also Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing cases). Courts also consider “the length of time the plaintiff was exposed, the issue of whether the plaintiff himself caused the condition, the plaintiff's ability to address the condition himself, and other factors.” See Oswald v. Manlove, Case No. 16-CV-991, 2019 WL 464135, at *11–12 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 6, 2019) (discussing cases). In Lindell v. Pollard, 558 F. Supp. 3d 734 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 3, 2021), the plaintiff was exposed to filthy conditions for one day and the court found that “[t]he plaintiff’s minimal exposure to human feces, while undoubtedly unpleasant, did not pose a threat to his health or safety and was not so serious as to deprive him of basic human dignity.” Id. at 751. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not contain sufficient detail to state an Eighth Amendment violation. Although Plaintiff generally states that feces and urine were present in his cell, he does not include details about how much feces or urine was in the cell. More importantly, it is unclear how long Plaintiff was forced to endure the alleged conditions. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff complaint as alleged fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim. The Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before July 3, 2025 to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. 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 July 3, 2025. 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 $321.92 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 12th day of June, 2025. BY THE COURT: — BARS PV fea NY J.\P. Stadtmaueller U.S. District Judge
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.
Page 8 of 9
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.