UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARIO MARTINE SIMS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-cv-1067-bhl
OFFICER BAH,
Defendant.
SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Mario Martine Sims, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at the Waupun Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. On September 2, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and after concluding it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, gave Sims the opportunity to file an amended complaint, which he did on September 15, 2025. This decision screens the amended complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT As explained in the original screening order, the Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and must dismiss any complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised any 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 screening a complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT According to Sims, on September 2, 2024, he was escorted from his cell by Defendant Security Staff Officer Bah after Sims complained that he was having trouble breathing because of OC spray that had been used while removing a prisoner from a cell near Sims’ cell. Sims explains that the prisoner had tried to light his cell on fire, so there also was smoke in the air. Sims asserts that he was handcuffed in front and that, although Officer Bah was escorting him down the stairs, Officer Bah did not have a hold on Sims. Sims asserts that he slipped on the fifth step and fell down one step. He states that his hands/arms caught on the railing. Other officers freed Sims’ hands/arms from the railing, but he suffered injury to his neck and shoulder. Sims asserts that
Officer Bah disregarded an excessive risk to his safety by not holding on to him as he descended the stairs even though he knew that the OC spray and smoke had complicated Sims’ breathing and ability to see. Dkt. No. 8. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials must take reasonable measures to ensure an inmate’s safety.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). “To state a claim premised on prison officials’ failure to protect him from harm, [a plaintiff] must allege that the defendants knew of and disregarded an ‘excessive risk’ to his ‘health and safety.’” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). As the Court explained in the original screening order, while the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged that walking down a typical stairwell while handcuffed might be riskier than descending without restraints, the risk is not sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment claim. See Perkins v. Pfister, 711 F. App’x 335, 337 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court cannot reasonably infer that Sims faced an
“excessive risk” when he was allowed to descend the stairs unassisted while handcuffed in front so that he could access the hand railing. Moreover, Officer Bah’s failure to steady Sims after he slipped was at most negligence, which is insufficient to support a constitutional claim. The Court understands that Sims suffered significant injury from this accident, but as the Supreme Court long ago acknowledged, “[a]n accident, although it may produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be characterized as wanton infliction of unnecessary pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Sims therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has
incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on September 17, 2025. s/ Brett H. Ludwig BRETT H. LUDWIG United States District Judge This order and the judgment to follow are final. Plaintiff may appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be non- meritorious. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). If Plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARIO MARTINE SIMS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-cv-1067-bhl
OFFICER BAH,
Defendant.
SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Mario Martine Sims, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at the Waupun Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. On September 2, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and after concluding it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, gave Sims the opportunity to file an amended complaint, which he did on September 15, 2025. This decision screens the amended complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT As explained in the original screening order, the Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and must dismiss any complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised any 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 screening a complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT According to Sims, on September 2, 2024, he was escorted from his cell by Defendant Security Staff Officer Bah after Sims complained that he was having trouble breathing because of OC spray that had been used while removing a prisoner from a cell near Sims’ cell. Sims explains that the prisoner had tried to light his cell on fire, so there also was smoke in the air. Sims asserts that he was handcuffed in front and that, although Officer Bah was escorting him down the stairs, Officer Bah did not have a hold on Sims. Sims asserts that he slipped on the fifth step and fell down one step. He states that his hands/arms caught on the railing. Other officers freed Sims’ hands/arms from the railing, but he suffered injury to his neck and shoulder. Sims asserts that
Officer Bah disregarded an excessive risk to his safety by not holding on to him as he descended the stairs even though he knew that the OC spray and smoke had complicated Sims’ breathing and ability to see. Dkt. No. 8. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials must take reasonable measures to ensure an inmate’s safety.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). “To state a claim premised on prison officials’ failure to protect him from harm, [a plaintiff] must allege that the defendants knew of and disregarded an ‘excessive risk’ to his ‘health and safety.’” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). As the Court explained in the original screening order, while the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged that walking down a typical stairwell while handcuffed might be riskier than descending without restraints, the risk is not sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment claim. See Perkins v. Pfister, 711 F. App’x 335, 337 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court cannot reasonably infer that Sims faced an
“excessive risk” when he was allowed to descend the stairs unassisted while handcuffed in front so that he could access the hand railing. Moreover, Officer Bah’s failure to steady Sims after he slipped was at most negligence, which is insufficient to support a constitutional claim. The Court understands that Sims suffered significant injury from this accident, but as the Supreme Court long ago acknowledged, “[a]n accident, although it may produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be characterized as wanton infliction of unnecessary pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Sims therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has
incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on September 17, 2025. s/ Brett H. Ludwig BRETT H. LUDWIG United States District Judge This order and the judgment to follow are final. Plaintiff may appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be non- meritorious. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). If Plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time, generally no more than one year after the entry of judgment. The Court cannot extend these deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a case.