Neal v. Wesner

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · August 14, 2025 · No. 25-cv-0734-bbc

Summary

This screening order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin addresses a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to medical care under the Eighth Amendment. The court grants the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, and dismisses claims against three defendants for failing to state a plausible claim. The court permits the action to proceed against one defendant, establishes a schedule for filing fees and service, and outlines procedural requirements for discovery and electronic filing.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Writing for the Court
Byron B. Conway
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Decision date
August 14, 2025
Docket number
25-cv-0734-bbc
Procedural posture
Motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screening of the complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Neal may proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying the full filing fee
  2. Whether Neal's complaint states a viable §1983/Eighth Amendment claim against APNP Tonya Wesner
  3. Whether the complaint fails to state a claim against Diana Simmons, Sara English, and Edward Rothbauer

Holdings

  1. The court granted Neal's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to pay the filing fee over time after he paid a partial amount and provided a certified trust account statement.
  2. {"issue":"Whether Neal's complaint states a viable §1983/Eighth Amendment claim against APNP Tonya Wesner","holding":"The complaint may proceed against APNP Tonya Wesner on an Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to his medical condition.","ratioDecidendi":"The Seventh Circuit two‑part test for deliberate indifference requires (1) an objectively serious medical condition and (2) deliberate indifference by the defendant; the allegations concerning Wesner's refusal to refer Neal for appropriate treatment satisfy the plausibility standard.","isBinding":true,"dispositionTied":true,"sourcePinCite":"","supportingAuthorities":[{"authorityType":"case","citation":"Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc)","proposition":"Deliberate indifference test","role":"foundation"},{"authorityType":"case","citation":"Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 945 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2019)","proposition":"Eighth Amendment medical care standard","role":"foundation"}]}
  3. {"issue":"Whether the complaint fails to state a claim against Diana Simmons, Sara English, and Edward Rothbauer","holding":"The court dismissed the claims against Simmons, English, and Rothbauer for failure to state a claim.","ratioDecidendi":"The plaintiffs did not allege that these providers were deliberately indifferent; they merely provided conservative treatment and were unaware of continued pain, which is insufficient for an Eighth Amendment claim.","isBinding":true,"dispositionTied":true,"sourcePinCite":"","supportingAuthorities":[{"authorityType":"case","citation":"Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)","proposition":"Eighth Amendment medical care claim requires deliberate indifference","role":"foundation"}]}]
  4. obiterDicta
  5. :
  6. disposition
  7. :
  8. other
  9. remandInstructions
  10. :
  11. keyQuotations
  12. :
  13. rulesAnnounced
  14. :
  15. casesCited
  16. :
  17. statutesCited
  18. :
  19. rulesCited
  20. :
  21. constitutionalProvisionsCited
  22. :
  23. secondarySourcesCited
  24. :
  25. overruledCases
  26. :
  27. distinguishedCases
  28. :
  29. abrogatedCases
  30. :
  31. limitedCases
  32. :
  33. questionedCases
  34. :
  35. subsequentHistory
  36. :
  37. isStillGoodLaw
  38. :null
  39. goodLawNotes
  40. :
  41. practiceAreas
  42. :
  43. topics
  44. :
  45. precedentialValue
  46. :
  47. nonprecedential
  48. documentFinality
  49. :
  50. final

Factual background

Quentin Neal, a prisoner at Waupun Correctional Institution, injured his right Achilles tendon in April 2022. He received medical care from APNP Diana Simmons and later Dr. Sara English, who prescribed conservative treatment. In July 2024, APNP Tonya Wesner referred him to physical therapy for back pain, but the therapist Edward Rothbauer refused to treat his heel pain and directed him back to Wesner, who denied further treatment.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a complaint as a pro se prisoner and moved for in forma pauperis status; the court considered the motion and screened the complaint for plausibility.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…