Opinion
22-CV-247-JPS
10-31-2022
JULIUS GARRISON, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN OLSEN, SGT. WILLIAMS, and CAPTAIN WESTRA, Defendants.
ORDER
J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Julius Garrison, an inmate confined at Waupun Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from an inmate assault. ECF No. 1. On October 7, 2022, and prior to the Court's screening, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 15; the Court therefore treats this as the operative complaint in the matter. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. This Order resolves Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens his amended 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 June 7, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $102.91. Plaintiff paid that fee on June 24, 2022. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2; the Court will deny Plaintiff's second motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, ECF No. 9, as moot. Plaintiff 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 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 alleges that he warned Defendant Captain Olsen (“Olsen”) about death threats made against him by another inmate, Russell Rose (“Rose”). ECF No. 15 at 2. Plaintiff warned Olsen weeks in advance through the use of a Special Placement Need (“SPN”) request. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Sergeant Williams (“Williams”) knowingly moved inmate Russell Rose next to Plaintiff's cell so that Rose could kill Plaintiff. Id.
Rose stabbed Plaintiff on February 16, 2020, following his release from administrative custody. Id. at 3. At approximately 10-11a.m., Olsen escorted Rose to transition at cell B57. Id. Olsen then arrived at Plaintiff's cell at ¶ 30 and escorted him to the transition unit. Id. While Plaintiff was walking, Rose assaulted Plaintiff with a sharp object and struck him in the back of the neck and head several times. Id.
William was the unit sergeant and failed to secure Rose in his cell. Id. Defendant Captain Westra (“Westra”) knew of the threat on Plaintiff's life and the danger he faced from Rose. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges he is still at risk as long as he is housed in Waupun. Id.
2.3 Analysis
Plaintiff may proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Olsen, Williams, and Westra. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires prison officials to take “reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Balsewicz v. Pawlyk, 963 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “This means that a constitutional violation inheres in a prison official's ‘deliberate indifference' to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate.” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828).
Deliberate indifference has an objective component and a subjective component. Id. To satisfy the objective component, the prisoner must have been exposed to a harm that was objectively serious. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). Under the subjective component, the prison official must have known of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-38). That is, the official must have been “aware of facts from which the inference could be draft that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” and he must have “draw[n] th[at] inference.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). But liability does not attach if the prison official takes reasonable measures to abate the known risk. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844). At the early pleading stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Olsen, Williams, and Westra based on the allegations that they knew of the serious risk of danger to Plaintiff's life and disregarded that risk.
3. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed on the following claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b):
Claim One: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Olsen, Williams, and Westra.
The Court has enclosed with this Order guides prepared by court staff to address common questions that arise in cases filed by prisoners. These guides are entitled, “Answers to Prisoner Litigants' Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro Se Litigants' Common Questions.” They contain information that Plaintiff may find useful in prosecuting his case.
Defendants should take note that, within forty-five (45) days of service of this Order, they are to file a summary judgment motion that raises all exhaustion-related challenges. The Court will issue a scheduling order at a later date that embodies other relevant deadlines.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, ECF No. 2, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; Plaintiff's second motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, ECF No. 9, be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, a copy of the amended complaint and this Order have been electronically transmitted to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Defendants Olsen, Williams, and Westra;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under the informal service agreement, those Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint within sixty (60) days;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants raise any exhaustion-related challenges by filing a motion for summary judgment within forty-five (45) days of service;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Defendants contemplate a motion to dismiss, the parties must meet and confer before the motion is filed. Defendants should take care to explain the reasons why they intend to move to dismiss the complaint, and Plaintiff should strongly consider filing an amended complaint. The Court expects this exercise in efficiency will obviate the need to file most motions to dismiss. Indeed, when the Court grants a motion to dismiss, it typically grants leave to amend unless it is “certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Harris v. Meisner, No. 20-2650, 2021 WL 5563942, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021) (quoting Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510, 524 (7th Cir. 2015)). Therefore, it is in both parties' interest to discuss the matter prior to motion submissions. Briefs in support of, or opposition to, motions to dismiss should cite no more than ten (10) cases per claim. No string citations will be accepted. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff is hereby warned that he must file a response, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7 (E.D. Wis.), or he may be deemed to have waived any argument against dismissal and face dismissal of this matter with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect from his institution trust account the $247.09 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;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Plaintiff is confined; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk's Office mail Plaintiff a copy of the guides entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants' Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro Se Litigants' Common Questions,” along with this Order.
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 .