Griffin v. Brown County Sheriff Department et al
Filing
15
SCREENING ORDER re 13 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 5/10/2024. Defendant Brown County Sheriff Department is DISMISSED from this action. Plaintiff may PROCEED on a Fourteenth Amendment medical treatment c laim against Doe defendants (Brown County Jail Medical Staff). Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add Sheriff Todd J Delain as a defendant for the limited purpose of helping Plaintiff identify the names of the Doe defendants. USMS to SERVE a copy of the Amended Complaint and this Order upon Sheriff Delain, who need not respond to that complaint but must respond to discovery requests as specified. Plaintiff to IDENTIFY the Doe defendants within 60 days of Sheriff Delain's attorney appearing or this action may be dismised. Motions to dismiss must comply with specified requirements. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Lou A Griffin at Racine Correctional Institution)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LOU A. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT and BROWN
COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF,
Case No. 24-CV-53-JPS
ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff Lou A. Griffin, an inmate confined at Racine Correctional
Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1.1 On April 2, 2024,
the Court screened the complaint, found that it failed to state a claim, and
allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 9.
On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 13. This
Order screens Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
1.
FEDERAL SCREENING STANDARD
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court must screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity
or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint if the prisoner raises claims that are
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief
1
No. 7.
Plaintiff submitted his signature page separately on February 2, 2024. ECF
may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court applies
the same standard that applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing
Booker-El v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison, 668 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir.
2012)). A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The
complaint must contain enough facts, accepted as true, to “state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or
the laws of the United States and that whoever deprived him of this right
was acting under the color of state law. D.S. v. E. Porter Cnty. Sch. Corp., 799
F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee,
570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The Court construes pro se complaints
liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by lawyers. Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720 (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776
(7th Cir. 2015)).
2.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff brings this case against Defendants Brown County Sheriff
Department and Brown County Jail Medical Staff. ECF No. 13 at 1. Plaintiff
alleges that the medical staff failed to adequately place him away from
Page 2 of 8
inmates with COVID-19. at 3. Id. Plaintiff became infected with COVID-19
at some point. Id. Plaintiff went to the medical department several times
and staff ignored his serious medical needs. Id. Plaintiff complained about
headaches, a loss of sleep, blackouts, and night sweats. Id. He was
eventually given aspirin for high blood pressure but was sent away without
ever addressing the night sweats, blackouts, and hot/cold issues. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff noticed that his ear problems were becoming more chronic
and painful. Id. Plaintiff reported this issue to medical staff, but he was
again ignored. Id. Finally, on March 10, 2023, Plaintiff was rushed to the
Aurora Bay-Port Hospital emergency room to receive life-saving surgery.
Id.
3.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges that he was a pretrial detainee during the relevant
time period. A § 1983 claim that a state pretrial detainee has received
inadequate medical care is predicated on the rights secured by the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. James v. Hale, 959 F.3d 307,
318 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 346–47 (7th
Cir. 2018)). Claims of inadequate medical care while in pretrial detention
are subject to an objective reasonableness standard. Id. The plaintiff bears
the burden to demonstrate objective unreasonableness, and he must make
a two-part showing. Id. First, he must show that the defendants acted
purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly when considering the consequences
of their response to the medical condition at issue in the case. Id. (citing
McCann v. Ogle County, Ill., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018)). Second, the
plaintiff must show that the challenged conduct was objectively
unreasonable given the totality of the relevant facts and circumstances. Id.
Page 3 of 8
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to
proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment medical claim against Doe
defendants (Brown County Jail Medical Staff). Plaintiff’s allegations show
that he was suffering from an arguably serious medical condition that
resulted in him requiring emergency-life saving surgery and that medical
staff failed routinely ignored his requests for help. The Court will not,
however, allow Plaintiff to proceed on a claim for staff’s failure to protect
him from COVID-19 inmates because he does include sufficient facts for the
Court to be able to discern a claim. See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff may
later amend his complaint, after identifying the medical staff, if he wishes
to pursue this claim going forward.
As to the Brown County Sheriff Department, it is not a ‘person’ for
the purposes of § 1983 and therefore not a suable entity. See Smith v. Knox
Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he district court was
correct that, in listing the Knox County Jail as the sole defendant, [Plaintiff]
named a non-suable entity.”). As such, the Court will dismiss this
defendant for the failure to state a claim against them.
Finally, because Plaintiff does not name of any of the jail staff as
defendants, the Court will add the Brown County Sheriff—Todd J. Delain—
as a defendant for the limited purpose of helping Plaintiff identify the
names of those employees. See Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d
548, 556 (7th Cir. 1996). For now, Plaintiff may proceed against Doe
defendants and must identify these employees later by name and identify
specifically what each person did or did not do in relation to his medical
treatment. Sheriff Delain does not have to respond to the amended
complaint. After Sheriff Delain’s attorney files an appearance in this case,
Plaintiff may serve discovery upon Sheriff Delain (by mailing it to his
Page 4 of 8
attorney at the address in his notice of appearance) to get information that
will help him identify the names of the Doe defendants.
For example, Plaintiff may serve interrogatories (written questions)
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 or document requests under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Because Plaintiff does not yet state a
claim against Sheriff Delain, Plaintiff’s discovery requests must be limited
to information or documents that will help Plaintiff learn the real names of
the Doe defendants he is suing. Plaintiff may not ask Sheriff Delain about
any other topic, and Sheriff Delain is under no obligation to respond to
requests about any other topic.
After Plaintiff learns the names of the individuals that he alleges
violated his constitutional rights, he must file a notice identifying their real
names. The Court will dismiss Sheriff Delain as a defendant once Plaintiff
identifies the Doe defendants’ names, unless Plaintiff provides additional
information that Sheriff Delain was personally involved in denying his
medical treatment. After those defendants have an opportunity to respond
to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Court will issue a scheduling order
for the remainder of the case.
Plaintiff must identify the names of the Doe defendants within sixty
days of Sheriff Delain’s attorney appearing. If he does not or does not
explain to the Court why he is unable to do so, the Court may dismiss his
case based on the failure to follow the Court’s order.
4.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed
on the following claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b):
Claim One: Fourteenth Amendment medical treatment claim
against Doe defendants (Brown County Jail Medical Staff).
Page 5 of 8
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brown County Sheriff
Department be and the same is hereby DISMISSED from this action for the
failure to state a claim against it;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Todd J. Delain be added as
a defendant for the limited purpose of helping Plaintiff identify the names
of the Doe defendants;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshals Service shall
serve a copy of the amended complaint and this Order upon Defendant
Sheriff Todd J. Delain pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Plaintiff is advised that Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to
charge for making or attempting such service. 28 U.S.C. § 1921(a). Although
Congress requires the Court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service,
it has not made any provision for these fees to be waived either by the Court
or by the U.S. Marshals Service. The current fee for waiver-of-service
packages is $8.00 per item mailed. The full fee schedule is provided at 28
C.F.R. §§ 0.114(a)(2), (a)(3). The U.S. Marshals Service will give Plaintiff
information on how to remit payment. The Court is not involved in
collection of the fee;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheriff Delain does not have to
respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint; however, he must respond to
any discovery requests as described in this Order; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Defendants contemplate a motion to
dismiss, the parties must meet and confer before the motion is filed.
Defendants should take care to explain the reasons why they intend to
move to dismiss the amended complaint, and Plaintiff should strongly
consider filing a second amended complaint. The Court expects this
Page 6 of 8
exercise in efficiency will obviate the need to file most motions to dismiss.
Indeed, when the Court grants a motion to dismiss, it typically grants leave
to amend unless it is “certain from the face of the complaint that any
amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Harris v. Meisner,
No. 20-2650, 2021 WL 5563942, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021) (quoting
Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510,
524 (7th Cir. 2015)). Therefore, it is in both parties’ interest to discuss the
matter prior to motion submissions. Briefs in support of, or opposition to,
motions to dismiss should cite no more than ten (10) cases per claim. No
string citations will be accepted. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss,
Plaintiff is hereby warned that he must file a response, in accordance with
Civil Local Rule 7 (E.D. Wis.), or he may be deemed to have waived any
argument against dismissal and face dismissal of this matter with prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of May, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 7 of 8
Plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions shall
submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will
scan and e-mail documents to the Court. Prisoner E-Filing is mandatory
for all inmates at Columbia Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional
Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh Correctional
Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility.
Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities, or who have been
released from custody, will be required to submit all correspondence and
legal material to:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S
CHAMBERS. If mail is received directly to the Court’s chambers, IT
WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER AND WILL NOT BE FILED IN
THE CASE.
Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely file any brief, motion,
response, or reply may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute. In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any
change of address. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED
ADDRESS TO THE COURT AND MAIL IS RETURNED TO THE
COURT AS UNDELIVERABLE, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THIS
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Page 8 of 8
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?