Pfeil, Dereck v. State of Wisconsin et al

Filing 4

ORDER that plaintiff Dereck Lee Pfeil's request for leave to proceed is DENIED and his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. That proposed amended complaint must set forth a "short and plain statement" of the facts in support of his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this orde r, the court will take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint as directed, then this case will be closed without further notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/21/2014. (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DERECK LEE PFEIL,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
13-cv-482-wmc
STATE OF WISCONSIN, DODGE COUNTY
and TODD NEHLS,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Dereck Lee Pfeil has filed a proposed complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated while he was in custody at the Dodge
County Jail. Pfeil has been found eligible for leave to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee.

Because he proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must review the proposed

complaint and dismiss any portion that is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks money damages from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

In addressing any pro se litigant’s

complaint, the court must read the allegations generously, reviewing them under “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 521 (1972). Even under this lenient standard, plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed
must be denied for reasons set forth briefly below.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
For purposes of this order, the court accepts all well-pled allegations as true and
assumes the following material facts.
Pfeil has a lengthy record of criminal offenses and traffic violations in at least five
counties.1 Most of those offenses occurred in Dodge County. Recently, Pfeil was charged in

1

The court has supplemented the sparse allegations in plaintiff’s complaint with dates and

Dodge County Case No. 2013CF106 with possession of cocaine (second offense), possession
of THC (second offense); operating while intoxicated (second offense); operating with
restricted controlled substance (two counts); possession of drug paraphernalia; and operating
with a revoked license. Pfeil also was charged with felony bail jumping (two counts) and
operating with a revoked license in Dodge County Case No. 2013CF453. Both cases remain
pending.
According to the proposed complaint, Pfeil sues the State of Wisconsin, Dodge
County and former Dodge County Sheriff Todd Nehls. Pfeil contends that he was denied
insulin at the Dodge County Jail for three days, which caused him to become ill and vomit.
Pfeil does not indicate when this incident may have happened. Noting that his blood sugar
was high, Pfeil asked an unidentified member of the “medical staff” and an unidentified
deputy sheriff for insulin but his requests appear to have been denied for lack of medical
authorization. Pfeil asked to go to the hospital, but that request was also denied.
Pfeil maintains that the defendants are liable for violating the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”2 He seeks unspecified compensatory
damages for his suffering.
OPINION
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff alleges
too little, failing to meet the minimal federal pleading requirements found in Rule 8 of the

procedural information about his underlying proceedings from the electronic docket available at
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, http://wcca.wicourts.gov (last visited November 15, 2013). The
court draws all other facts from the complaint.
Pfeil also mentions 10 U.S.C. § 855, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by a
military tribunal, and “Article 55” of an unspecified treaty, but he does not allege facts showing
how these apply.
2

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In particular, Rule 8(a) requires a “‘short and plain

statement of the claim’ sufficient to notify the defendants of the allegations against them and
enable them to file an answer.” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). It is
not necessary for a plaintiff to plead specific facts. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

By contrast,

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements” are insufficient to establish a plausible claim. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555) (observing that courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation”).
To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the
deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.
Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of
North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)). To demonstrate liability under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that an individual personally caused or
participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568,
574 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. Taylorville Correctional Ctr., 129 F.3d 410, 413 (7th Cir. 1997)
(noting that “personal involvement” is required to support a claim under ' 1983). Dismissal
is proper “if the complaint fails to set forth ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” St. John’s United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625
(7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

3

Liberally construed, plaintiff alleges that he was denied adequate medical care in the
form of insulin. However, the pending complaint is factually insufficient in several respects.
The complaint is vague as to the date of the alleged harm because plaintiff does not say when
he was denied care.

In light of plaintiff’s criminal record of offenses in Dodge County,

plaintiff’s failure to provide a specific date is not sufficient to give notice of his claim.
Accordingly, his allegations do not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Moreover, plaintiff does not fault any particular Jail policy or identify an individual
who was personally involved with the incident that forms the basis for his complaint. His
conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish liability on the part of former Sheriff Nehls
or Dodge County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691
(1978). The only other defendant, the State of Wisconsin, is not a proper party. Even
assuming that it had some involvement with the conditions of plaintiff’s confinement, a suit
for money damages against a state is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

See Will v.

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989).
For all of these reasons, the proposed complaint does not meet the pleading standard
found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in this case to cure the deficiencies outlined
above. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of
this order. That proposed amended complaint must set forth a “short and plain statement”
of his claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), providing the precise date(s) that he was denied insulin
and identifying the individual defendant(s) who are responsible for the harm alleged.

If

plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will take
that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff

4

fails to submit an amended complaint as directed, then this case will be closed without
further notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Dereck Lee Pfeil’s request for leave to proceed is DENIED and his
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
2. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of
the date of this order. That proposed amended complaint must set forth a
“short and plain statement” of the facts in support of his claims. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a).
3. If plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the
court will take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.

If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint as

directed, then this case will be closed without further notice pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Entered this 21st day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

5