Dubrovin v. Johnson

United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · February 18, 2025 · No. 24-cv-1412-pp

Summary

This federal district court order screens an incarcerated plaintiff’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses the case for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff alleged that a correctional officer’s verbal abuse violated his Eighth Amendment rights and the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and complained about mold in his facility’s ventilation system. The court found the allegations legally insufficient, noting that verbal abuse generally does not rise to a constitutional violation and that the PREA does not create a private right of action. Consequently, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend, assessed a strike under the three-strikes rule, and provided appellate instructions.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Writing for the Court
Chief United States District Judge
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Decision date
February 18, 2025
Docket number
24-cv-1412-pp
Procedural posture
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1)
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint fails to state a claim and is dismissed.

Key quotations

“[e]xcept in exceptional circumstances, verbal abuse or unprofessional comments from prison officials do not violate the Constitution.” (at 4)
The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because the amended complaint fails to state a claim. (at 5)

Factual background

While incarcerated at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, plaintiff Denis Dubrovin alleged that CO Johnson verbally abused him and that mold in the ventilation system affected his breathing. He claimed the comments violated the Prison Rape Elimination Act and sought $75,000 in damages.

Procedural history

The court screened the plaintiff's original complaint on Jan. 2, 2025, gave him an opportunity to amend, received the amended complaint on Jan. 24, 2025, and now dismisses the case for failure to state a claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…