Ryker Louis Shampo v. Oconto County, Carol Kopp, Lt. Mary Ruechel, Sgt. David Rosenfeldt, CO Christopher Melland, Chad Angus, Wisconsin County Mutual Company, and Oconto County Jail

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin screened Ryker Louis Shampo’s second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning alleged failure by Oconto County Jail officials to respond to his threats of self-harm. The court allowed Eighth Amendment and state-law negligence claims to proceed against David Rosenfeldt and Christopher Melland, while dismissing the claims against the remaining defendants. The court ordered service and directed the parties to await a scheduling order before beginning discovery.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Rosenfeldt and Melland because it alleged that they knew of an objectively serious and imminent risk of self-harm and failed to respond to Shampo's threats.
2. Shampo may proceed with a state-law negligence claim against Rosenfeldt and Melland based on their alleged failure to respond to his threats of self-harm.
3. The complaint did not state claims against Kopp, Ruechel, or Angus based on their dismissal of Shampo's grievances or alleged failure to train or supervise Rosenfeldt and Melland.
4. The Oconto County Jail was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it was not a person subject to suit under the statute.
5. The complaint did not state a § 1983 claim against Oconto County because it did not allege that the conduct of Rosenfeldt and Melland resulted from an official policy or custom. Wisconsin County Mutual Company was also dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Rosenfeldt and Melland for deliberate indifference to an imminent risk of self-harm.
2. Whether Shampo stated a state-law negligence claim against Rosenfeldt and Melland based on the alleged failure to respond to his threats of self-harm.
3. Whether claims against officials based on denying grievances or allegedly failing to train or supervise stated a claim.
4. Whether the Oconto County Jail was a person subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5. Whether Oconto County and Wisconsin County Mutual Company could be liable under § 1983 absent allegations of an official policy or custom causing the alleged violation.