Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed without prejudice David D. Ebben’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Sergeant Worth for failure to state a claim. The court rejected claims concerning religious exercise, access to paperwork, verbal harassment, and brief exposure to cold, and granted Ebben until January 9, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a viable First Amendment or RLUIPA claim based on the restriction of Ebben’s kufi or Jummah-prayer paper.
- Whether the complaint stated an access-to-courts claim based on Ebben’s being required to leave paperwork behind and being prevented from writing down a court-related instruction.
- Whether alleged mispronunciation or humiliation stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Whether brief exposure to bitterly cold weather while traveling between a prison transport van and the prison stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice at the screening stage and leave granted to amend.
Holdings
- Ebben could not proceed under RLUIPA because the statute does not authorize monetary damages against the defendant, and any request for injunctive relief was moot after Ebben was released from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and was no longer confined at the facility where the events occurred.
- The complaint did not state a viable First Amendment or RLUIPA claim based on the alleged refusal to permit Ebben to wear or retain his kufi during the trip to court.
- Ebben could not proceed on a First Amendment or RLUIPA claim concerning the paper containing his Jummah prayer because he alleged that he was ultimately permitted to take the paper to court.
- The complaint did not state an access-to-courts claim based on Ebben’s being required to leave paperwork behind or being prevented from writing down the DUI-counseling instruction because he did not allege actual harm or prejudice to a legitimate legal challenge.
- Alleged humiliation caused by mispronunciation of Ebben’s name did not state a claim under § 1983 because simple verbal harassment, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
- Brief exposure to bitterly cold temperatures while walking between a transport van and the prison was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and Ebben was granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies.
Key quotations
“The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons.”
“Standing alone, simple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws.”
“Neither we nor the Supreme Court has ever held that brief exposure to cold is a constitutional violation.”
Factual background
While incarcerated at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution, Ebben alleged that Sergeant Worth mispronounced his name, initially restricted his ability to take a paper containing his Friday Jummah prayer to court, refused to wear gloves when searching Ebben’s kufi, required him to leave the kufi and jacket behind, and briefly exposed him to cold weather while walking to and from a transport van. Ebben also alleged that Worth made him leave paperwork at the prison and prevented him from writing down a court-ordered instruction concerning DUI counseling. The court found that the allegations involved, among other things, an isolated religious-practice burden, brief exposure to cold, verbal humiliation, and alleged denial of access to paperwork without pleaded resulting harm.
Procedural history
David D. Ebben, proceeding pro se and without prepayment of the filing fee, sued Sergeant Worth for alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court screened the complaint and concluded that the allegations failed to state a viable claim. It denied leave to proceed, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied a motion for a status report as moot, and allowed Ebben until January 9, 2026, to file an amended complaint.