# Brown v. Remarkiwitcz

> District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · July 15, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10720105

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
- **Decided:** July 15, 2024
- **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/10720105

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAMAINE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-cv-0660-bhl

LT. FISHER,
CAPTAIN REMARKIWITCZ,
WARDEN HEPP,
B. HOMPE, and
JANE DOE NURSE,

Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Jamaine Brown, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun
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). As required under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(2), Brown has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-
month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint and has been assessed and paid an
initial partial filing fee of $6.58. 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
According to Brown, in October 2023 he was placed in the restrictive housing unit. Brown

explains that the water in the cell was turned off because the inmate who had been housed in the
cell before him kept flooding the cell. Brown asserts that he “notified all the proper authorities of
the problem [but] no [one] responded to his complaint.” Brown explains that, later, Lt. Fisher had
a conversation with Brown and informed Brown that he did not know there was a problem with
the water. Fisher then moved Brown to a new cell with running water. Brown asserts that he had
been without water for several days. Dkt. No. 1 at 3.
Brown also asserts that he had written to health services about having no water, but no one
responded until about a week later. Brown explains that because there was no running water in
his cell, his toilet filled with human waste and the smell gave him horrible headaches. According
to Brown, he tried to notify Captain Remarkiwitcz that he had no water and his toilet was not

working, but he never responded. Brown asserts that he was severely dehydrated, suffered terrible
headaches and cramping, and fell unconscious at one point. Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5.
THE COURT’S ANALYSIS
“The Eighth Amendment prohibits the States from subjecting prisoners to conditions of
confinement amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.” Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1051
(7th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege that “the conditions are
sufficiently serious—i.e., that they deny the inmate the minimal civilized measures of life’s
necessities, creating an excessive risk to the inmate’s health and safety,” and that the defendant
was deliberately indifferent to that risk. Id. (citations omitted). With this standard in mind, the
Court will allow Brown to proceed on a conditions of confinement claim against Remarkiwitcz
and the Jane Doe Nurse to whom he complained about not having running water in his cell.
According to Brown, despite the seriousness of this condition, neither of them timely responded
to his concerns, leaving him without water for several days, which caused him significant injury.

After Remarkiwitcz has an opportunity to respond to Brown’s complaint and after the Court enters
a scheduling order, Brown may use discovery to learn the name of the Jane Doe Nurse.
Brown does not, however, state a claim against Fisher. According to Brown, once Fisher
learned of the problem, he moved Brown to a cell with running water. This response undercuts
any suggestions that Fisher was deliberately indifferent to the conditions in which Brown was
housed. Brown also does not state a claim against Warden Hepp, or B. Hompe. It is not clear
from Brown’s allegations that either of them knew that Brown did not have running water. Brown
alleges only that he wrote to “the proper authorities,” but he does not specify to whom he wrote,
when he wrote to them, or what he said to them. Brown’s allegations are therefore too vague to
state a claim against Hepp and Hompe, who are listed in the caption of the complaint but who are

not mentioned in the body of the complaint. To the extent Brown sues them because they are
supervisors, the doctrine of respondeat superior cannot be used to hold a supervisor liable for the
misconduct of a subordinate. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995).
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 Brown fails to state a claim against Lt. Fisher, Warden
Hepp, and B. Hompe, so the clerk’s office may terminate them from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to an informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, copies of Brown’s complaint and this order
are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Captain
Remarkiwitcz.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, Captain Remarkiwitcz shall file a responsive

pleading to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
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 the agency having custody of Brown shall collect from
his institution trust account the $343.42 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 the parties may not begin discovery until after the
Court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.
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 July 15, 2024.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10720105. Public record. Not legal advice.