Maldonado v. Doehling
Filing
8
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Anthony Maldonado and Warden) (Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTHONY MALDONADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-C-96
LORI DOEHLING,
Health Service Manager,
Defendant.
SCREENING ORDER
The plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Redgranite Correctional Institution (RCI), filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes
before the court on the plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
The plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). If a prisoner does not have the money to pay the filing fee, he or she can
request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff has filed a certified copy of his prison trust
account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The plaintiff has been assessed and paid an initial partial
filing fee of $13.93 in this action.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 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).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson
ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim
as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. “Malicious,” although sometimes treated
as a synonym for “frivolous,” “is more usefully construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, the 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 is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his statement need only
“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). However, a complaint that offers “labels and conclusions” or “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, “that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation
2
was visited upon his by a person or persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore v.
County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North Fond
du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980).
The court is obliged to give the plaintiff’s pro se allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” a liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)).
Maldonado alleges he suffers from severe back and feet pain. Specifically, he contends that
he has “a marked congenital narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal related to short pedicles most
pronounced from L3 downward.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Maldonado claims that he has been denied
surgery and other “significant action” since at least 2010. He allegedly has only been provided with
limited pain medication. Maldonado also claims he has been repeatedly informed over the past
several months that he would be seen by a doctor, although that meeting had not occurred as of
January 16, 2017.
He seeks injunctive relief in the form of immediate surgery as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.
It is well-established that deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a person held
in custody violates his or her constitutional rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To
establish liability, a prisoner must show (1) that his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) that
the official acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A serious medical need is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician
as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would recognize the
necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001).
Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence; it requires that the official know of, yet
3
disregard, an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, 837.
Subjective knowledge of the risk is required: "[A]n official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that
he should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be
condemned as the infliction of punishment." Id. at 838.
The complaint states the basics of an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and
Maldonado may proceed on his claim for injunctive relief against Doehling in her official capacity
as the Health Services manager at RCI. However, the complaint does not provide sufficient
information for a claim of monetary damages against Doehling as an individual. “In addition to the
element of deliberate indifference, § 1983 lawsuits against individuals require personal involvement
in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim.” Palmer v. Marion County, 327
F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003). As to supervisor defendants, “although direct participation is not
necessary, there must at least be a showing that [they] acquiesced in some demonstrable way in the
alleged constitutional violation.” Id. The complaint does not claim to what extent, if at all, Doehling
was involved in the alleged deprivation of Maldonado’s medical treatment. Accordingly, Maldonado
may not proceed on his claim for monetary damages against Doehling in her individual capacity.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to an informal service agreement between the
Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of plaintiff’s complaint and this order are
being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on the state
defendants.
4
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between the
Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, the defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the
complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections or his designee shall collect from the plaintiff's prison trust account the $336.07 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 prisoner's trust account and
forwarding payments to the clerk of the 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 action.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the warden of the institution
where the inmate is confined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall submit all correspondence and legal
material to:
Honorable William C. Griesbach
c/o Office of the Clerk
United States District Court - WIED
United States Courthouse
125 S. Jefferson St., Suite 102
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will
only delay the processing of the matter.
The plaintiff is further advised that failure to make a timely submission may result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
5
In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. Failure to
do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal
rights of the parties, and result in dismissal of the action.
Dated this 28th
day of February, 2017.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?