Dantzler v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 10

SCREENING ORDER re 9 Amended Complaint signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 3/10/2025. Defendants Wisconsin Department of Corrections and Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility are DISMISSED from this action. Plaintiff may PROCEED against Defenda nt Schultze on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Copies of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and this Order to be electronically SENT to WI DOJ for service on Defendant, who shall FILE a responsive pleading within 60 days. Defend ant to FILE any exhaustion-related challenges in a motion for summary judgment within 45 days. Motions to dismiss must comply with specified requirements. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jimmy Wayne Dantzler at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JIMMY WAYNE DANTZLER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-CV-1415-JPS
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, MILWAUKEE
SECURE DETENTION FACILITY,
and GEOFFREY SCHULTZE,

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jimmy Wayne Dantzler, an inmate confined at the
Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (“MSDF”), filed a pro se complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated.
ECF 1. On January 28, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, found that it
failed to state a claim, and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
ECF No. 8. On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF
No. 9. This Order screens Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
1.

SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
1.1

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

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)).
1.2

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff brings this case against Defendants Wisconsin Department
of Corrections (“DOC”), MSDF, and Geoffrey Schultze (“Schultze”). ECF
No. 9 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2024, he told staff at MSDF
Page 2 of 7

that he planned to kill himself and that he needed to speak with
psychological services. Id. at 2. Schutze came to tell property that Plaintiff
was “doing this over property,” which was not true. Id. At approximately
11:00 a.m., Schultze brought a property bag with a razor blade in the bag.
Id. at 2–3. The bag was clear and Schultze knew there was a razor blade in
the bag. Id. Plaintiff then swallowed the razor blade. Id. As a result, Plaintiff
spent four days at Aurora Sinai Hospital in pain. Id. Plaintiff alleges he was
able to self-harm due to the deliberate indifference of MSDF staff. Id.
1.3

Analysis

The Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed on an Eighth Amendment
deliberate-indifference

claim

against

Defendant

Schultze

for

his

indifference to the risk of Plaintiff’s self-harm. The Eighth Amendment
prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” and “imposes a duty on prison
officials to take reasonable measures to guarantee an inmate’s safety and to
ensure that inmates receive adequate care.” Phillips v. Diedrick, No. 18-C-56,
2019 WL 318403, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2019) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). While a prison official’s deliberate indifference to a
prisoner’s substantial risk of serious harm violates the Eighth Amendment,
not every claim by a prisoner that he did not receive adequate care will
succeed. Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976)). To prevail
on such a claim, a plaintiff will have to provide evidence showing that
“(1) his medical need was objectively serious, and (2) the defendant[]
consciously disregarded this need.” Berry v. Lutsey, 780 F. App’x 365, 368–
69 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834).
Prison staff have a duty to prevent inmates from causing serious
harm to themselves. Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison, 746 F.3d
766, 775–76 (7th Cir. 2014). Before an official will be liable for ignoring a risk
Page 3 of 7

of self-harm, however, the “risk of future harm must be sure or very likely
to give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers.” Davis-Clair v. Turck, 714 F.
App’x 605, 606 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
question of when that risk of future harm becomes “sure or very likely to
give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers” depends on the circumstances
of the case. See, e.g., Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543, 546–47 (7th Cir. 2006)
(explaining that “at some point,” to ensure a prisoner is not “seriously
endangering his health,” prison officials would have a duty and right to
step in and force a prisoner on a hunger strike to take nourishment); see also
Davis v. Gee, No. 14-cv-617, 2017 WL 2880869, at *3–4 (W.D. Wis. July 6,
2017) (holding that to show a constitutional injury, the harm must present
an objectively, sufficiently serious risk of serious damage to future health;
swallowing a handful of Tylenol fails to do that).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff states sufficient factual allegations
to proceed against Schulze for an Eighth Amendment deliberateindifference claim. Plaintiff alleges that Schultze knew Plaintiff wanted to
kill himself and asked to see psychological services. Plaintiff also alleges
that Schultze knowingly gave Plaintiff the razor blade that Plaintiff used to
self-harm. As such, at the pleading stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff may
proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Schultze for his deliberate
indifference to the serious risk of Plaintiff’s self-harm.
The Court does not find, however, that Plaintiff can proceed against
Defendants DOC or MSDF. A prison 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.”). Similarly, “states and their agencies are not ‘persons’ subject to
Page 4 of 7

suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Johnson v. Supreme Court of Ill., 165 F.3d 1140,
1141 (7th Cir. 1999). This means that “[n]either the State of Wisconsin nor
the State’s Department of Corrections is a proper defendant.” Andreola v.
Wisconsin, 171 F. App’x 514, 515 (7th Cir. 2006). As such, the Court will
dismiss DOC and MSDF from this action for the failure to state a claim
against them.
2.

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: Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim
against Defendant Schultze for his indifference to the serious risk of
Plaintiff’s self-harm.
Defendant should take note that, within forty-five (45) days of
service of this Order, he is to file a summary judgment motion that raises
all exhaustion-related challenges. The Court will issue a scheduling order
at a later date that embodies other relevant deadlines.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants DOC and MSDF be and the same
are hereby DISMISSED from this action;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under an informal service
agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, a
copy of the amended complaint and this Order have been electronically
transmitted to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on
Defendant Schultze;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under the informal service
agreement, Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the amended
complaint within sixty (60) days;
Page 5 of 7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant raise any exhaustionrelated challenges by filing a motion for summary judgment within fortyfive (45) days of service; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Defendant contemplates a motion to
dismiss, the parties must meet and confer before the motion is filed.
Defendants should take care to explain the reasons why he intends to move
to dismiss the complaint, and Plaintiff should strongly consider filing an
amended complaint. The Court expects this 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 Defendant files 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 March, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 6 of 7

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 7 of 7