Holm, Victor v. Helgersen, Steve et al

Filing 6

ORDER that plaintiff Victor Holm may have until April 17, 2017, to file an amended complaint that provides fair notice of his claims against each defendant. If plaintiff does not respond by April 17, 2017, I will screen the merits of those claims in the original complaint that provide fair notice and dismiss the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/31/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VICTOR HOLM,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-72-bbc
v.
STEVE HELGERSON, DALIA SULIENE,
DR. SPRINGS, KARL HOFFMAN,
SALAM SYED, TRISH ANDERSON,
KIM CAMBELL, JOANE LANE,
JEAN CARLSON, CHARLES FACKTOR
CHARLES COLE, L. ALSUM O’DONOVAN,
J. LABELLE, DOE #1 and DOE #2,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff and prisoner Victor Holm has filed a complaint in which he alleges
that various prison officials at the Columbia Correctional Institution violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care for chronic pain that he began
to experience in his neck and shoulder in 2011. Plaintiff has made an initial partial payment
of the filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), so his complaint is ready for
screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.
I cannot allow plaintiff to proceed at this time because his complaint does not provide
fair notice to many of the defendants, as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff starts out well by identifying specific things that he believes particular

1

defendants did to violate his rights. E.g., Cpt. ¶¶ 48-53, dkt. #1 (alleging that defendant
Helgerson ignored plaintiff’s complaints of pain for several days in May 2011). However,
plaintiff’s allegations against many defendants are nothing more than legal conclusions that
do not give the court or the defendant adequate notice of what each defendant did. For
example, plaintiff says that he “informed Karl Hoffman numerous times that he was in
extreme pain and Karl Hoffman failed to treat the c[h]ronic and acute intense pain being
suffered by Holm.” Id. at ¶ 84. Plaintiff does not explain what he wanted Hoffman to do,
identify when or where any of his interactions with Hoffman occurred or otherwise provide
any context for this conclusory allegation.

Without that context, it is impossible to

determine whether plaintiff states a claim against Hoffman.
Plaintiff’s allegations against many of the other defendants similarly fail to provide
fair notice of what those defendants allegedly did to violate plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff
includes the same allegation that he makes against Hoffman against defendant Salam Syed
as well. Id. at ¶ 85. As to defendants Anderson, Lane, Carlson, Facktor, Cole, O’Donovan
and LaBelle, plaintiff alleges only that each “was deliberately indifferent to Holm’s serious
medical needs when [he or she] failed to act upon knowledge that Holm was suffering acute
intense and c[h]ronic pain due to HSU failures that should have treated the pain to
minimize Holm’s suffering and treated the cause of the pain.” Id. at ¶¶ 102-09. Again,
plaintiff does not provide enough information to allow a determination whether any of those
defendants may have violated plaintiff’s rights.
I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that gives fair notice

2

as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In drafting his new complaint, plaintiff
should keep in mind the elements of his claims. In particular, a plaintiff raising a claim for
inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment must prove three things:
(1) the plaintiff had “a serious medical need,” which simply means that he
needed the medical treatment that he was requesting and that the failure to
provide that treatment subjected him to a substantial risk of serious harm;
(2) the defendant was aware that the plaintiff needed treatment;
(3) the defendant consciously failed to take reasonable steps to help the
plaintiff get the treatment he needed.
King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, plaintiff’s allegations against
each defendant should explain what each defendant knew about plaintiff’s medical problems
(and how that defendant learned that information, if plaintiff knows), along with what each
defendant said and did after learning about those problems.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Victor Holm may have until April 17, 2017, to file
an amended complaint that provides fair notice of his claims against each defendant. If
plaintiff does not respond by April 17, 2017, I will screen the merits of those claims in the

3

original complaint that provide fair notice and dismiss the remaining claims under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8.
Entered this 31st day of March, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4