Rzeplinski, James v. Maassen, Tammy et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying plaintiff's 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/7/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAMES RZEPLINSKI,
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-820-jdp

TAMMY MAASSEN, LIZZIE TEGELS,
JODI DAUGHERTY, DR. ONJUKKA, EDWARD WALL,
DEIRDRE MORGAN, CHARLES FACKTOR,
WELCOME ROSE, B. DELAP, and JODI DEROSA,
Defendants.

Plaintiff James Rzeplinski, a prisoner at the Jackson Correctional Institution, brings
Eighth Amendment claims that his dentures have broken and that various prison officials
have not helped him get them fixed. In the July 6, 2015, screening order in this case, I denied
plaintiff leave to proceed on other claims that he was being threatened with sexual abuse:
Plaintiff also alleges that he is being threatened with sexual
abuse, but I do not understand plaintiff to be alleging that he
has complained about those threats to defendants. Thus,
although an intentional failure to protect a prisoner from
physical threats could support an Eighth Amendment claim, I
conclude that plaintiff does not state a failure to protect claim
because he has not adequately alleged that any of the defendants
were aware of the threats.
Dkt. 4, at 3.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, stating that he did in
fact complain to prison officials about the sexual threats. He includes a document I will
construe as a supplement to the complaint in which he states, “I have indeed complained of
this unacceptable ‘[threats] of sexual abuse.’” Dkt. 8. He also attaches an appeal of one of his

inmate grievances, in which he raises the problems with his dentures and the threats of sexual
assault. Dkt. 8-1.
The problem for plaintiff is that he does not explain which of the defendants named
in the complaint were made aware of the sexual threat problem. Plaintiff includes the
grievance appeal but there is no indication who addressed that complaint, or how they
resolved it. Because plaintiff fails to bring new allegations putting any of the defendants on
notice that they were aware of his problem and yet failed to help, I will deny his motion for
reconsideration.
Plaintiff remains free to renew his motion, but he will have to provide new allegations
explaining which of the defendants he alerted to the sexual threat problem and how they
responded.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff James Rzeplinski’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s July 6, 2015, screening order, Dkt. 8, is DENIED.
Entered January 7, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2