Hall v. Milwaukee County Jail Facility

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 5/8/2015. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the plaintiff's 6 and 9 motions for th e court to order Milwaukee County Jail Facility to release certified copies of his Prisoner Trust Account Statement are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has brought an action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has incurred a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). (cc: all counsel, plaintiff via USPS) (mlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DION DARREN HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-1542

MILWAUKEE COUNTY JAIL
FACILITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Dion Darren Hall, currently held at the Dodge County Detention
Facility, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Milwaukee
County Jail denied him physical access to the law library. The matter comes before the
court on Hall’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Hall’s motions for release
of his Prisoner Trust Account Statement, and for screening of Hall’s complaint.
Hall has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $6.01. The court
will grant Hall’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court will deny Hall’s motions regarding the release of his Prisoner Trust
Account Statement. (ECF Nos. 6,9.) Hall’s account statement was provided to the court
on January 13, 2015 (ECF No. 7), rendering his motions moot.
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).
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 is not necessary for a 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

2

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint’s allegations “must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
In considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should follow the
principles set forth in Twombly by first “identifying pleadings that, because they are no
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679. Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Id. If there are wellpleaded factual allegations, courts must, second, “assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
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 was visited upon him 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)).

3

Complaint’s Allegations
Hall is currently being held at the Dodge County Detention Facility; however, his
complaint focuses on his lack of access to a legal library while at Milwaukee County
Jail. Hall is suing Milwaukee County Jail.
Hall alleges that he did not have physical access to a legal library, but instead,
was required to submit requests to a librarian, who printed requested materials and
returned them to Hall. Hall is frustrated by the delay of this process, alleging that, “[I]t
could take almost two weeks to receive what I can look up in a minute with physical
access to the law library.” (Compl. at 5, ECF No. 1.) Hall claims he needed access in
order to challenge his “confinement by Immigration via habeas corpus writ [and] fight[] a
criminal felony charge.” (Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1.)
For relief, Hall seeks injunctive relief “mak[ing] physical access to Law Library
mandatory” and damages in the amount of $250,000.
Discussion
Hall’s complaint suffers from multiple deficiencies that necessitate dismissal. As
an initial matter, he fails to identify a proper defendant. Hall has sued the Milwaukee
County Jail Facility; however, the Milwaukee County Jail is not a suable entity under §
1983. See Whiting v. Marathon County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 382 F.3d 700, 704 (7th Cir. 2004)
(citing Buchanan v. Kenosha, 57 F.Supp.2d 675, 678 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (citing cases). Given

4

that Hall has named only the Milwaukee County Jail as a defendant, his complaint must
be dismissed.
In addition, Hall’s request for injunctive relief “to make physical access to Law
Library mandatory for [Milwaukee County Jail]” (Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1) is moot
because he has been transferred to the Dodge County Detention Facility and has not
plead any likelihood of his being transferred back to the Milwaukee County Jail. See
Maddox v. Love, 655F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiff’s prayers for injunctive
relief were moot because plaintiff was transferred to another facility). Accordingly,
Hall may not pursue such relief.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “the fundamental constitutional
right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the
presentation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with
adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in law.” Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified this
right, stating, “the mere denial of access to a prison library or other legal materials is not
itself a violation of a prisoner’s rights; his right is to access the courts, and only if the
defendant’s conduct prejudices a potentially meritorious challenge to the prisoner’s
conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement has this right been infringed.”
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original) (citing Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 355 (1996)). Thus, to state a viable claim upon which relief may

5

be granted, a prisoner’s complaint must spell out “the connection between the alleged
denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate challenge to a
conviction, sentence, or prison conditions.” Pratt v. Tarr, 464 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir.
2006) (quoting Marshall, 445 F.3d at 968). Simply alleging that there was insufficient
access to legal materials is not enough; to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint has
to “go on and allege that as a result of the [defendant’s] action the plaintiff had lost a
case or suffered some other legal setback.” Pratt, 464 F.3d at 732.
Hall alleges that the nearly two-week delay he experienced in obtaining legal
materials hindered his ability to challenge his confinement via habeas corpus and to fight
a criminal felony charge. However, that claim is contradicted by the fact that, currently
pending before this court, is a detailed petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed by Hall on
December 10, 2014. (Case No. 14-cv-1538, ECF No. 1.) Hall’s petition is thorough, citing
to several cases in support of his legal theories. Hall’s lack of physical access to a law
library, while perhaps frustrating, did not interfere with his ability to challenge his
confinement. Because Hall has suffered no harm as a result of his alleged inability to
physically access the law library, he does not state a claim on this basis.
In addition, Hall’s allegation that he is unable to defend against a criminal felony
charge is belied by Hall’s own statements in a letter to this court, in which he explains
that he has been appointed a public defender to assist him with his criminal case.
(March 23, 2015 Letter at 4, ECF No. 13.) The rights described by the Supreme Court in

6

Bounds give “the government the choice to provide either access to a law library or
access to counsel or other appropriate legal assistance.” United States v. Sykes, 614 F.3d
303, 311 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). The fact that Hall was appointed counsel in
his criminal case is fatal to his access-to-the-courts claim. Hall is guaranteed access to
one or the other, but not both. See U.S. ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F.2d 226, 231 (7th Cir.
1983) (holding that “the offer of court-appointed counsel to represent a defendant
satisfies the constitutional obligation of a state to provide a defendant with legal
assistance.”).
For these reasons, the court will dismiss Hall’s complaint with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions for the court to order
Milwaukee County Jail Facility to release certified copies of his Prisoner Trust Account
Statement (ECF Nos. 6, 9) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has
brought an action that was dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

7

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 Dodge County Sheriff shall collect from the
plaintiff's prison trust account the $343.99 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 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 the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the Dodge
County Sheriff and to Corey F. Finkelmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Wisconsin
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7857, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707-7857.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that any appeal from this matter would not be taken in
good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) unless the plaintiff offers bona fide
arguments supporting his appeal.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 8th day of May, 2015.

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

8