Fountain v. Wall et al
Filing
8
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 3/23/2016 SCREENING 7 Amended Complaint filed by Otto Lee Fountain, Jr. The court ORDERS that if the plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must file it in time for the clerk's office to receive it by 6/13/2016. If the court does not receive an amended complaint by that date, the court will dismiss this lawsuit without further notice or hearing. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff)(pwm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
OTTO LEE FOUNTAIN, JR.,
Case No. 15-cv-1336-pp
Plaintiff,
v.
EDWARD WALL,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 7),
AND GIVING PLAINTIFF A DEADLINE BY WHICH TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR HAVE HIS CASE DISMISSED
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff, a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that several defendants (one
named and several unnamed) were negligent in failing to post a sign in the
fitness center identifying a defective exercise bike. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff paid
the filing fee in full on November 30, 2015. He then filed an amended complaint
on December 10, 2015, naming only one defendant. Dkt. No. 7. This order
screens the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
I.
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
A.
Standard for Screening Complaints
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to this action because
the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915.
Even when the plaintiff pays the filing fee in full, the PLRA requires federal
courts to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1
1915A(a). The court may dismiss an action or portion thereof if the claims
alleged are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, the plaintiff
must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide “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)). “Labels and
conclusions” or a “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).
The factual content of the complaint must allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. Indeed, allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must
state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Federal courts follow the two-step analysis set forth in Twombly to
determine whether a complaint states a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. First, the
Court determines whether the plaintiff’s legal conclusions are supported by
factual allegations. Id. Legal conclusions not support by facts “are not entitled
to the assumption of truth.” Id. Second, the Court determines whether the wellpleaded factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
2
The court gives 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)).
B.
Facts Alleged in the Amended Complaint
On July 29, the plaintiff went to the Winnebago Correctional Facility
fitness center to ride an exercise bike. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. While attempting to ride
the bike, the roller chain used to peddle the bike came off of its sprocket. Id.
The plaintiff attempted to place the chain back on the back crank, but alleges
that the front crank continued to spin, which caused the chain to “[catch] the
front crank and [take his] hand with it.” Id. The plaintiff lost “half of [his] ring
finger on the right hand, [and] then part of [his] pinky finger.” Id. at 3.
The plaintiff alleges that at the time this occurred, he was attending
college for “Micro Computers,” and was planning to pursue a career in that
field. Id. He indicates that he has had numerous surgeries, but that the injury
ruined the nerves in his hand. Id. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants were
negligent because they did not post a sign in the fitness center stating that the
bike was faulty. Id. He asserts that the institution failed to provide a “safe
environment” for him to exercise. Id.
For relief, the plaintiff seeks: (1) money judgment “in an amount to be
proven at trial,” (2) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, (3) costs,
including attorney’s fees, and (4) any other relief that is just and proper. Dkt.
No. 7 at 4.
3
C.
Legal Analysis of Alleged Facts
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equipment &
Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). They have original
jurisdiction where the controversy exists between citizens of different states, or
where the controversy implicates a federal question. 28 U.S.C. §§13311332(a)(1). The plaintiff’s allegations do not fall into either category; negligence
is a common law cause of action under state law, and the defendants are not
diverse. See Hayes v. Cordio, No. 02-C-0538-C, 2002 WL 32344949, at *1
(W.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2002).
In order for the plaintiff to bring a claim in federal court, he must allege
facts that demonstrate that the defendant1 either violated a federal statute, or
that the defendant violated his rights under some provision of the United
States Constitution. Incarcerated inmates have certain Constitutional rights
under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, among others.
The plaintiff’s complaint, however does not allege any violations of federal
statutes or of any provisions of the federal Constitution. If the plaintiff believes
1
The court notes that in the original complaint filed on November 9, 2015, the
plaintiff named as defendants the Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
Edward Wall (who was, until recently, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department
of Corrections), and “Winnebago Correctional Staff, Medical Staff.” Dkt. No. 1 at
1-2. In the caption of the amended complaint, however, the plaintiff refers to
plural defendants as “Wall et al.” Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The only defendant he lists by
name in the amended complaint, however, is “Wall.” Id. at 2. The amended
complaint takes the place of the original complaint; thus, as the case stands
now, the plaintiff has sued only one defendant—Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall is no longer
Secretary, and even if he were, the complaint does not state any facts that
show that Mr. Wall was personally involved in the plaintiff’s injury. If the
plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should name as defendants
the individuals he believes were directly involved in the events that caused the
injury to his hand.
4
that any individuals at the Winnebago facility violated federal statutes or the
federal Constitution, he must file an amended complaint, telling the court
which statutes or Constitutional provisions he believes were violated. He must
also name as defendants the particular individuals whom he believes violated
those rights.
The court will allow the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint
by a date certain. If the plaintiff files an amended complaint by that date, and
includes in the complaint allegations that any named defendants violated
federal statutes or the federal Constitution, the court will screen that amended
complaint. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by the deadline
below, the court will dismiss the lawsuit without further notice or hearing.
II.
CONCLUSION
The court ORDERS that if the plaintiff wishes, and is able to, file an
amended complaint, he must do so in time for the clerk’s office to receive it by
June 13, 2016. If the court receives the amended complaint by that date, the
court will screen it. If the court does not receive an amended complaint by that
date, the court will dismiss this lawsuit without further notice or hearing.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 23rd day of March, 2016.
5
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?