Means, Jerry v. Cox

Filing 14

ORDER denying plaintiff's 10 renewed request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may have until September 6, 2013, to submit the entire $350 filing fee for this case. If plaintiff fails to submit this fee by the deadline, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/23/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JERRY MEANS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

13-cv-146-bbc

DR. COX,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Jerry Means has filed a civil complaint alleging that he did not receive proper
medical care while he was incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. He seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, plaintiff has “struck
out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and must prepay the filing fee for this lawsuit unless his
complaint alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. In a May 8, 2013
order, I concluded that plaintiff’s allegations were not clear enough to tell whether he
qualified under the imminent danger standard. I stated as follows:
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges the following:
Defendant Dr. Cox prescribed plaintiff new high-blood-pressure
medication that made him pass out in his cell. Plaintiff fell on his face,
breaking two upper front teeth. His teeth were not repaired until three weeks
later, and are still loose. He also is experiencing pain in his gums.
....
From what I can tell from plaintiff’s allegations, the actions attributable

1

to Dr. Cox took place in the past. Plaintiff does not explain whether Cox
refused to treat him for his loose teeth or gum pain at the time plaintiff filed
his complaint or whether he continued to take the new high-blood-pressure
medication, which might continue to place him in peril. Accordingly, I will
deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without
prejudice to his filing an amended complaint explaining in more detail what
danger plaintiff faced at the time he filed his original complaint, rather than just
the harm he suffered in the past.
Dkt. #6. Plaintiff has now filed a document supplementing his allegations, in which he
states that “that was the last time Dr. Cox added or switched my high blood pressure
medication. It was another Dr. that switched all my medication up from the medication Dr.
Cox was giving me.”
Although plaintiff’s allegations are still somewhat vague, nothing in them suggests
that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm from defendant Cox in late
February 2013, when he filed his complaint; he states that a new doctor was treating him
with new blood pressure medications. To the extent that plaintiff continued to have tooth
or gum pain, he does not suggest that Cox was denying him treatment for that problem and
he does not name as a defendant the new doctor or anybody else who could have been
preventing him from getting treatment for the pain. Accordingly, I conclude that plaintiff’s
allegations of past harm do not qualify under the imminent danger standard, and he cannot
proceed in this case in forma pauperis. Instead, he will have to prepay the entire $350 filing
fee before the court can screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I will give him a
short time to do so.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Jerry Means’s renewed request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt.
#10, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff may have until September 6, 2013, to submit the entire $350 filing fee
for this case. If plaintiff fails to submit this fee by the deadline, the case will be dismissed
without prejudice.
Entered this 23d day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3