# Brown v. Molinaro

> District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · June 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10717271

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
- **Decided:** June 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10717271

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAMAINE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 22-cv-0476-bhl

CO MOLINERA and
RACINE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Jamaine Brown, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at the Racine
Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes before the Court on Brown’s motion
for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint.
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE
Brown has requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (in forma
pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of
the $350.00 filing fee over time. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). Brown has filed a certified copy of
his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his
complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2), and has been assessed and paid an initial
partial filing fee of $1.95. Brown’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee
will be granted.
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
The Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and must dismiss any
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised any 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 screening a
complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a
cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must
be at least sufficient to provide notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well
as when and where the alleged actions or inactions occurred, and the nature and extent of any damage
or injury the actions or inactions caused.
“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’
but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007)). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. at 556. “[T]he complaint’s allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Id. at 555 (internal quotations omitted).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Brown’s allegations are brief. He states that he “was ok before” but “was give[n] wrong
meds” and now is confused and “need[s] help with everything.” He states that someone had to
help him “write this letter.” He directs the Court to review the progress notes attached to his

complaint. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The attached progress notes are also brief. The first indicates that on
December 31, 2021, Brown received the wrong medications and became unresponsive. According
to the note, Brown was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation. Dkt No. 1-1 at 1. The
second note, which is dated March 31, 2022, states that Brown was observed getting off his
mattress without difficulty and was seen walking to his cell door, turning around, and placing his
hands behind his back for cuffing. The author observes that there was no apparent dizziness or
unsteady gait noted. Id.
THE COURT’S ANALYSIS
“To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she
was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that this

deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or persons acting under the color of state law.” D.S.
v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. Cty. of
Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). Brown’s allegations do not state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 because they fail to provide basic information such as what happened and who
was involved. While the Court understands that Brown received the wrong medications, it is not
clear who gave him the medications,1 if the person who gave him the medications did so by mistake
or intentionally, or what the person did or did not do after he/she realized the error. Further, Brown

1 Brown names CO Molinera in the caption of his complaint, but Molinera is not mentioned in the allegations in the
body of the complaint or in the progress notes attached to the complaint. The Court will not speculate on whether
Molinera is the officer who allegedly gave Brown the incorrect medications.
fails to include a demand for the relief sought as required by Rule 8(a)(3). Accordingly, Brown’s
complaint must be dismissed.
The Court will give Brown an opportunity to file an amended complaint. If he wants to
proceed with this lawsuit, the Court must receive his amended complaint by July 8, 2022. Brown

should draft his amended complaint as if he is telling a story to someone who knows nothing about
his situation. This means that he should explain: (1) what happened to make him believe he has a
legal claim; (2) when it happened; (3) who did it; (4) why; and (5) how the Court can assist him in
relation to those events. As Brown considers whether to file an amended complaint, the Court
reminds him that “a defendant’s inadvertent error, negligence or even ordinary malpractice is
insufficient to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987,
992 (7th Cir. 1996). As such, an officer’s one-time mistake in handing out medication is unlikely
to state a constitutional claim upon which relief can be granted. See Robinson v. Walker, No. 18-
cv-322-jdp, 2019 WL 3065897, at *1 (W.D. Wis. April 26, 2019) (holding that allegations that an
officer gave the wrong medication failed to state a claim). A claim of negligence may be pursued

in state court.
Brown is advised that an amended complaint will replace the original complaint and must
be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of
Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1998). If an amended
complaint is received, the Court will screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. If an amended
complaint is not received, the Court will dismiss this case based on Brown’s failure to state a claim
in his original complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brown’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 8, 2022, Brown may file an amended
pleading curing the defects in the original complaint as described this decision. If the Court does
not receive an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will dismiss this case based on
Brown’s failure to state a claim in the original complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Brown a blank prisoner
amended complaint form and a copy of the guide entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common
Questions,” along with this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Brown shall collect from
his institution trust account the $348.05 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments
from Brown’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income
credited to the prisoner’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 action. If Brown is
transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order

along with Brown’s remaining balance to the receiving institution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of
the agency where Brown is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing
Program institutions must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will
scan and e-mail documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all
inmates of Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge
Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution,
and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities must
submit the original document for each filing to the Court to the following address:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will
only delay the processing of the matter.
Brown is further advised that failure to make a timely submission 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. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not
being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on June 9, 2022.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10717271. Public record. Not legal advice.