Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants David Czapiewski leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and grants leave to file a second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court allows Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Marcus King and Cushings, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against King, while dismissing Amy Woolf. The court also denies as moot or unnecessary the plaintiff’s other motions and directs service and collection of the remaining filing fee.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff qualified to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
- Whether the proposed second amended complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against King and Cushings.
- Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Woolf based on her decision not to recommend clinical observation.
- Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against King.
- Whether the plaintiff's motion for a scheduling conference was necessary before the defendants were served and answered.
Holdings
- An incarcerated plaintiff who has paid the required initial partial filing fee may proceed without prepaying the remainder of the civil filing fee, which must be collected over time from the prison trust account.
- The complaint plausibly stated individual-capacity Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against King based on his alleged failure to respond after learning that the plaintiff was suicidal and his alleged provision of inaccurate information concerning the plaintiff's self-harm, and against Cushings based on the alleged denial of medical care for self-harm injuries.
- The complaint did not state an Eighth Amendment claim against Woolf because the alleged inaccurate information was supplied by King, and the complaint therefore did not plausibly allege that Woolf knowingly disregarded the plaintiff's serious medical or safety risk.
- The complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against King based on allegations that the plaintiff engaged in protected speech, suffered a potentially deterrent conduct report, and that the protected activity motivated the report.
Key quotations
“Failure to provide protection from suicide or self-harm constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation if deliberate indifference by prison officials to an incarcerated individual’s welfare effectively condones the harm by allowing it to happen.” (Section II.C)
“To plead a retaliation claim, the plaintiff must allege that “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the defendants’ decision to take the retaliatory action.”” (Section II.C)
Factual background
Czapiewski was incarcerated in the Restricted Status Housing Unit at Green Bay Correctional Institution and alleged that he attempted to alert staff to another incarcerated person who was self-harming. He alleged that, after telling officer Marcus King that he was suicidal, he repeatedly harmed himself by banging his head and diving from his toilet or sink, while King allegedly failed to obtain observation status and provided inaccurate information to crisis worker Amy Woolf. He further alleged that supervisor Cushings denied him access to medical staff after his self-inflicted injuries and that King issued him a conduct report in retaliation for his efforts to report the emergency and express his need for observation.
Procedural history
Czapiewski, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 complaint and moved to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. After receiving the initial partial filing fee, the court granted in forma pauperis status, denied as moot the extension and release-account motions, granted leave to file a second amended complaint, and screened that complaint. The court dismissed Amy Woolf, allowed Eighth Amendment claims against Marcus King and Cushings and a First Amendment retaliation claim against King to proceed, denied the scheduling-conference motion as unnecessary, and ordered service and responsive pleadings.