Jackson v. Guzman et al

Filing 20

SCREENING ORDER signed by Judge Brett Ludwig on 2/17/21. Pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, copies of the amended complaint and this order are being electronically sent today to the W isconsin Department of Justice for service on Guzman and Sabel. Guzman and Sabel shall file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party) (MP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NUGENE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-cv-0475-bhl

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GUZMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

On October 29, 2020, the Court dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 13. The Court instructed plaintiff Nugene Jackson to
file an amended complaint by March 9, 2021, if he wanted to proceed with this lawsuit. Dkt. Nos.
13, 18. Jackson filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2021. Dkt. No. 19. The Court will
screen it below.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
Jackson is an inmate at the Racine Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants
Guzman and Sabel are correctional officers at the institution. Id. at 1-2.
On October 4, 2109, Jackson was walking down a pathway towards his unit. Id. at 2-3.
He has an amputated right leg, so he was walking in an unbalanced manner. Id. The defendants
drove up behind him in a golf cart and used the metal door to intentionally knock him over. Id.
He states that there was no legitimate reason to hit him with a golf cart. Id. It caused “a swollen,
bruised and scar[r]ed left leg that perpetuated pain for several weeks.” Id. at 3. For relief, Jackson
seeks monetary damages and an injunction. Id. at 4

Case 2:20-cv-00475-BHL Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3 Document 20

ANALYSIS
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, Jackson must allege that he was
“deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that this
deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or persons acting under the color of state law.” D.S.
v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. Cty. of
Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)).
The “unnecessary and wanton” infliction of pain violates the Eighth Amendment. Hudson
v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)). To state
a claim, Jackson must allege that the defendants applied force maliciously and sadistically to cause

harm rather than in a good faith attempt to maintain or restore discipline. Id. at 6-7; see also Rice
ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 668 (7th Cir. 2012). Factors relevant to a
defendant’s mental state include the need for force, the amount of force used, the threat reasonably
perceived by officers, efforts made to temper the severity of the force, and the extent of injuries
caused by the force. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986); Rice, 675 F.3d at 668. A
“prisoner need not show a ‘significant injury’ in order to have a good claim under the [E]ighth
[A]mendment, if a guard inflicted pain maliciously or sadistically.” Guitron v. Paul, 675 F.3d
1044, 1046 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7).
Jackson alleges that the defendants maliciously and sadistically struck him with a golf cart
door to cause pain and humiliate him. He states that the defendants did this because he has an
amputated leg that caused him to walk in an unbalanced manner. He states that they had no
legitimate reason to behave that way and it caused significant pain for several weeks. Accordingly,
Jackson may proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim that the defendants used excessive force
on October 4, 2019.

2
Case 2:20-cv-00475-BHL Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3 Document 20

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Jackson may proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim that the
defendants used excessive force on October 4, 2019.
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin
Department of Justice and this Court, copies of the amended complaint and this order are being
electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Guzman and Sabel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, Guzman and Sabel shall file a responsive
pleading to the amended 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 Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
Brett H. Ludwig
United States District Judge

3
Case 2:20-cv-00475-BHL Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3 Document 20