Dantzler v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al
Filing
8
SCREENING ORDER re 1 Plaintiff's Complaint signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 1/28/2025. 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee is GRANTED; agency having custody of Plaintiff to COLLECT the balance of the filing fee as specified. By 2/19/2025, Plaintiff to FILE an amended complaint; failure to timely do so will result in dismissal of this action. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jimmy Wayne Dantzler with prisoner amended complaint form and prisoner/pro se guides and to Warden (order only) at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JIMMY WAYNE DANTZLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 24-CV-1415-JPS
WISCONSIN DEPARTEMENT 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 Defendants violated his constitutional
rights. ECF 1. This Order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee and screens his complaint.
1.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
THE FILING FEE
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to this case
because Plaintiff was a prisoner when he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(h). The PLRA allows the Court to give a prisoner plaintiff the ability
to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee. Id.
§ 1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the prisoner must pay an initial partial filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). He must then pay the balance of the $350 filing
fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account. Id.
On November 13, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $22.24. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff paid that fee on December
12, 2024. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2. He must pay the remainder of
the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this Order.
2.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
2.1
Federal Screening Standard
Under the PLRA, 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 the 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
Page 2 of 8
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)).
2.2
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff brings this case against Defendants Wisconsin Department
of Corrections (“DOC”), MSDF, and Geoffrey Schultz (“Schultze”). ECF No.
1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2024, he was able to self-harm
himself based on the negligence of MSDF staff. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was in
segregation due to a previous attempt at self-harm. Id. At approximately
11:00 a.m., Schultze brought a property bag with a razor blade in the bag.
Id. Inmates in segregation are not permitted to have razor blades. Id. at 2–3.
Plaintiff asked officers multiple times to see psychological services,
but he received no help. Id. at 3. Plaintiff then swallowed the razor blade.
Id. As a result, Plaintiff spent four days at Aurora Sinai Hospital in pain. Id.
2.3
Analysis
The Court finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on an Eighth
Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Defendants for their
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,
Page 3 of 8
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
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 does not find that Plaintiff states sufficient factual
allegations to proceed against Defendants for an Eighth Amendment
deliberate-indifference claim. Plaintiff alleges that Schultze gave him a
razor blade in his property bag. However, Plaintiff does not include facts to
suggest that Schultze knew he had given Plaintiff a razor blade or that
Page 4 of 8
Plaintiff was in danger of harming himself. Although Plaintiff alleges that
he informed unnamed staff that he needed to see psychological services, he
does not allege that these staff members were aware of the razor blade or
of any risk to his safety. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s allegations at most
show negligence, but nothing indicates that Defendants were aware of a
serious risk to his safety. Plaintiff may state a state-law negligence claim;
however, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim. The Court will
provide Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint and provide more
information.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not state a claim 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
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).
If Plaintiff believes he can successfully state an Eighth Amendment
claim, he must file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies as
described
herein. An
amended
complaint
must
be
filed
on
or
before February 19, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint within this
time period may result in dismissal of this action.
When writing his amended complaint, Plaintiff should provide the
Court with enough facts to answer the following questions: (1) Who
Page 5 of 8
violated his constitutional rights?; (2) What did each person do to violate
his rights?; (3) Where did each person violate his rights?; and (4) When did
each person violate his rights? Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not need
to be long or contain legal language or citations to statutes or cases, but it
does need to provide the Court and each Defendant with notice of what
each Defendant allegedly did or did not do to violate his rights.
The Court is enclosing a copy of its amended complaint form.
Plaintiff must list all of the defendants in the caption of his amended
complaint. He should use the spaces on pages two and three to allege the
key facts that give rise to the claims he wishes to bring, and to describe
which defendants he believes committed the violations that relate to each
claim. If the space is not enough, Plaintiff may use up to five additional
sheets of paper.
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must bear the docket
number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”
The amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints and must be
complete in itself without reference to the prior complaints. See Duda v. Bd.
of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056 (7th Cir.
1998). In Duda, the appellate court emphasized that in such instances, the
“prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the
amended pleading.” Id. at 1057 (citation omitted). If an amended complaint
is received, it will become the operative complaint in this action, and the
Court will screen it in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee, ECF No. 2, be and the same is hereby GRANTED;
Page 6 of 8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint fails to state a
federal claim;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint that complies with the instructions in this Order on or before
February 19, 2025. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint by the deadline,
the Court will screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If
Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will
dismiss this case based on a lack of jurisdiction;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Plaintiff a
blank prisoner amended complaint form and a copy of the guides entitled
“Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro
Se Litigants’ Common Questions,” along with this Order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of
Plaintiff shall collect from his institution trust account the $327.26 balance
of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prison trust
account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income
credited to Plaintiff’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 case. If Plaintiff is transferred to
another county, state, or federal institution, the transferring institution shall
forward a copy of this Order along with his remaining balance to the
receiving institution; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be sent to the
officer in charge of the agency where Plaintiff is confined.
Page 7 of 8
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of January, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
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?