Jones-El v. Moore et al
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 11/14/2023 granting 9 Motion for Reconsideration and that portion of the 6 screening order that dismisses Paula Stelsel is VACATED. Copies of the complaint, the screening order and this order are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice for service on Paula Stelsel. Paula Stelsel shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within 60 days of receiving electronic notice of this order. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DENNIS E. JONES-EL,
now known as Mustafa-El K. A. Ajala,
Case No. 23-C-1138
MARY MOORE, et al.,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dennis Jones-El, now known as Mustafa-El Ajala, is representing himself in this
42 U.S.C. §1983 action. On October 11, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and
allowed him to proceed on various Eighth Amendment claims. Dkt. No. 6. However, the Court
also concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Paula Stelsel, the Bureau of Health
Services Nursing Coordinator, based on allegations that she dismissed Plaintiff’s inmate
The Court observed that “[o]nly persons who participate in the violations are
responsible [and] . . . [r]uling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or
contribute to the violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007).
On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. He asserts that the
Court misapprehended his allegations and did not draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.
According to Plaintiff, he informed Stelsel multiple times that he was facing an unreasonable delay
in treatment. He asserts that her failure to intervene despite her authority to do so, is enough at
this stage for the Court to infer that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Upon further review of the complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
and will allow him to proceed on a deliberate indifference claim against Stelsel based on
allegations that she failed to take steps to abate the alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
See, e.g., Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “[o]nce an official
knows of [a] risk, the refusal or declination to exercise the authority of his or her office may reflect
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.
9) is GRANTED and that portion of the screening order (Dkt. No. 6) that dismisses Paula Stelsel
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, the screening
order, and this order are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for
service on Paula Stelsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, Paula Stelsel shall file a responsive pleading
to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may not begin discovery until after the
Court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.
Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 14th day of November, 2023.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge
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?