UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ______________________________________________________________________________ SAMUEL N. ROBERTS, JR.,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 24-cv-319-pp
CHANTALL JEWELL, et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A ______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Samuel N. Roberts, Jr., who is incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center and is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. This decision resolves the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee (Dkt. No. 2)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(h). The PLRA lets the court allow an incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). He then must pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id. On March 15, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $11.83. Dkt. No. 5. The court received $12 on April 10, 2024. The court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and will require him to pay remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this order. II. Screening the Complaint A. Federal Screening Standard Under the PLRA, the court must screen complaints brought by incarcerated persons 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 incarcerated 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. §1915A(b). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the court applies the same standard that it applies when considering whether to dismiss a case 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 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 liberally complaints filed by plaintiffs who are representing themselves and holds such complaints 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)). B. The Plaintiff’s Allegations The plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2024, he was waiting to take a shower in Dorm D2 and when the shower came on, the showerhead came off and hit him in the head. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He states that he fell back, hit the sink and hit the floor hard. Id. The plaintiff allegedly was “out” for a few seconds. Id. The plaintiff alleges that an Officer Brown (not a defendant) called a “medical emergency” after which nurses and staff arrived. Id. at 2-3. After about fifteen minutes, they allegedly got him up, put him in a wheelchair and took him to the health center at which time “they did nothing but put [him] on Tylenol Extra Strength.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff states that his back is still not right. Id. He allegedly asked Nurse Sonja Hoff “For [an] x-ray or something.” Id. The plaintiff alleges that the next day, he went to recreation in a wheelchair (he says he had no choice, that the whole dorm was required to go), and that while at recreation he got knocked over and fell on the floor, but did not go to medical. Id. He alleges that on the night of February 10, he submitted two HSU slips because he could not walk to the bathroom from pain in his back. Id. He allegedly asked for a cane or to see a specialist but was denied both. Id. The next day, the plaintiff allegedly “checked into segregation” because he couldn’t walk to the bathroom. Id. He states that eight days later, he submitted a health slip for an x-ray because his back still was not right. Id. The plaintiff alleges that he was on the list for PT, he went one time and now they don’t have anyone to do it. Id. He states that he still has bad pain, and his back is not right. Id. For relief, the plaintiff states that would like to be compensated. Id. at 4. He would also like to see the North building closed. Id. C. Analysis It is not clear whether the plaintiff was in the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center as a pretrial detainee or a criminally convicted person during the events described in the complaint. If he was a “pretrial detainee,” his rights arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; if he was a criminally convicted incarcerated individual, his rights arise out of the Eighth Amendment. See Miranda 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ SAMUEL N. ROBERTS, JR.,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 24-cv-319-pp
CHANTALL JEWELL, et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915A ______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Samuel N. Roberts, Jr., who is incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center and is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. This decision resolves the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and screens his complaint, dkt. no. 1. I. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing Fee (Dkt. No. 2)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(h). The PLRA lets the court allow an incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). He then must pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id. On March 15, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $11.83. Dkt. No. 5. The court received $12 on April 10, 2024. The court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and will require him to pay remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this order. II. Screening the Complaint A. Federal Screening Standard Under the PLRA, the court must screen complaints brought by incarcerated persons 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 incarcerated 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. §1915A(b). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the court applies the same standard that it applies when considering whether to dismiss a case 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 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 liberally complaints filed by plaintiffs who are representing themselves and holds such complaints 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)). B. The Plaintiff’s Allegations The plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2024, he was waiting to take a shower in Dorm D2 and when the shower came on, the showerhead came off and hit him in the head. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He states that he fell back, hit the sink and hit the floor hard. Id. The plaintiff allegedly was “out” for a few seconds. Id. The plaintiff alleges that an Officer Brown (not a defendant) called a “medical emergency” after which nurses and staff arrived. Id. at 2-3. After about fifteen minutes, they allegedly got him up, put him in a wheelchair and took him to the health center at which time “they did nothing but put [him] on Tylenol Extra Strength.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff states that his back is still not right. Id. He allegedly asked Nurse Sonja Hoff “For [an] x-ray or something.” Id. The plaintiff alleges that the next day, he went to recreation in a wheelchair (he says he had no choice, that the whole dorm was required to go), and that while at recreation he got knocked over and fell on the floor, but did not go to medical. Id. He alleges that on the night of February 10, he submitted two HSU slips because he could not walk to the bathroom from pain in his back. Id. He allegedly asked for a cane or to see a specialist but was denied both. Id. The next day, the plaintiff allegedly “checked into segregation” because he couldn’t walk to the bathroom. Id. He states that eight days later, he submitted a health slip for an x-ray because his back still was not right. Id. The plaintiff alleges that he was on the list for PT, he went one time and now they don’t have anyone to do it. Id. He states that he still has bad pain, and his back is not right. Id. For relief, the plaintiff states that would like to be compensated. Id. at 4. He would also like to see the North building closed. Id. C. Analysis It is not clear whether the plaintiff was in the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center as a pretrial detainee or a criminally convicted person during the events described in the complaint. If he was a “pretrial detainee,” his rights arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; if he was a criminally convicted incarcerated individual, his rights arise out of the Eighth Amendment. See Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 350-51 (7th Cir. 2018) (explaining that an objective reasonableness standard applies to claims brought by pretrial detainees while a deliberate indifference standard applies to claims brought by incarcerated persons). The plaintiff has not stated a claim based on allegations that the showerhead fell on him because he has not alleged that any defendant knew that the showerhead posed a risk of harm. It may be possible that the plaintiff could state a claim based on allegations that he has not been provided medical care for his injuries from the incident. The original complaint, however, does not state a claim based on alleged failure to treat the plaintiff’s injuries because he has not named any defendant who allegedly did not provide him with adequate treatment. The court will give the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The court is enclosing a copy of its amended complaint form. The plaintiff must use this form for his amended complaint. See Civil Local Rule 9(b). (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiff must list the case number for this case on the first page. He must list all the defendants he wants to sue in the caption of the amended complaint. He should use the spaces on pages two and three to explain 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 there is not enough space on those pages, the plaintiff may use up to five additional sheets of paper, double-spaced so that the court can read them. The amended complaint takes the place of the prior complaint and must be complete in itself; the plaintiff may not refer the court or other readers back to facts in the previous complaint. When writing his amended complaint, the 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? The 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. III. Conclusion The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The court CONCLUDES that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Dkt. No. 1. The court ORDERS that the plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this order. If the plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so in time for the court to receive it by the end of the day on May 22, 2024. If the court receives an amended complaint by the end of the day on May 22, 2024, the court will screen the amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. If the court does not receive either an amended complaint or a request for more time to file one by the May 22, 2024 deadline, the court will dismiss this case based on the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim in his original complaint and will issue him a strike as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). The court ORDERS that the agency that has custody of the plaintiff must collect from his institution trust account the $338 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from the plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the 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 agency must clearly identify the payments by the case name and number. If the plaintiff transfers to another county, state or federal institution, the transferring institution must forward a copy of this order, along with the plaintiff’s remaining balance, to the receiving institution. The court will send a copy of this order to Inmate Accounts at the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center. The court ORDERS that plaintiffs who are incarcerated at Prisoner E- Filing Program institutions1 must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the court. Plaintiffs who are incarcerated at all other prison facilities must submit the original document for each filing to the court to the following address: 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 JUDGE’S CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the case. The court advises the plaintiff that if he fails to file documents or take other required actions by the deadlines the court sets, the court may dismiss the case based on his failure to diligently pursue it. The parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. The court advises the plaintiff that it is his responsibility to promptly notify the court if he is released from custody or transferred to a different institution. The plaintiff’s failure to keep the court advised of his address may result in the court dismissing this case without further notice.
1 The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all individuals incarcerated at Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution, and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. The court will include a guide prepared by court staff to address common questions that arise in cases filed by prisoners. Entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions,” this guide contains information that the plaintiff may find useful in prosecuting his case. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of May, 2024. BY THE COURT:
HON. PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge