Nigel Robert Schultz v. Dustin Rohwer, Officer Ash, Registered Nurses

• Court: District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00717
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NIGEL ROBERT SCHULTZ,

Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER

DUSTIN ROHWER, 25-cv-717-wmc OFFICER ASH, REGISTERED NURSES,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Nigel Robert Schultz, a state prisoner who represents himself, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied medical care while at the Columbia Correctional Institution (“CCI”). (Dkt. #1.) Because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court must accept the complaint’s allegations as true and construe them generously, holding the complaint to a less stringent standard than one drafted by a lawyer. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). However, plaintiff must still provide facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Applying this standard, the court must dismiss the complaint because it us insufficient to state a claim for relief, but will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend. OPINION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a claim for relief must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Each allegation must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The primary purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). This standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are not enough. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Here, plaintiff alleges that he did not get “medical attention” for an unspecified

condition from “correctional officer sergeant rohwer[,] correctional officer ash[,] and every registered nurse who worked throughout the entire day of August 16, 2025[.]” (Dkt. #1, at 2.) To succeed on a claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, an inmate “must show ‘(1) an objectively serious medical condition to which (2) a state official was deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent.’” Johnson v.

Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2016)). A medical need is objectively serious if it “has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment” or “is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotations omitted). A prison official acts with the requisite deliberate indifference only if the official

“actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Plaintiff does not provide any details about his medical condition on August 16, 2025, and does not establish that it was objectively serious for purposes of an Eighth

Amendment claim. Likewise, he does not specify what treatment he requested or explain why it was required. He also does not allege facts showing what harm, if any, he suffered from being denied care. He further fails to identify each defendant and specify their personal involvement in the alleged harm. This is insufficient to state a claim. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2018); see also Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833-

34 (7th Cir. 2010) (individual liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement, so plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that individual personally caused or participated in constitutional deprivation); Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Individual liability under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 . . . requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.”); Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., Ill., 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (Section 1983 lawsuits “require personal involvement in

the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim.”). The Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing a self-represented plaintiff’s case without giving the plaintiff a chance to amend. Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). The court will grant plaintiff a 30-day window to file an amended complaint, preferably on one of the court’s approved forms for prisoners filing civil actions or similar form available from the prison law library. It must be at least sufficient to provide

notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well as when and where the alleged actions or inactions occurred. Plaintiff is further encouraged to identify each defendant by their full name to the best of his ability. Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint will be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and that any failure to respond will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff Nigel Robert Schultz is DENIED leave to proceed, and his complaint (dkt. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 2) The clerk’s office is directed to provide plaintiff with a prisoner packet containing a civil rights complaint form. 3) Plaintiff has until March 6, 2026 to file an amended complaint that satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint by that deadline will result in the court dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Entered the 4th day of February, 2026. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge