UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BEAU D. JAMMES,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-CV-1096-JPS

VINCENT BISKUPIC, ORDER Defendant.

Plaintiff Beau D. Jammes, a former inmate confined at Outagamie County Jail, filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that Defendant violated his constitutional rights. (Docket #1). This Order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens his complaint. 1. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to this case because Plaintiff was a prisoner when he filed his complaint. See

(h). The PLRA allows the Court to give a prisoner plaintiff the ability to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee.

§ 1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the prisoner must pay an initial partial filing fee.

(b)(1). He must then pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner account.

On October 4, 2021, the Court waived Plaintiff’s initial partial filing fee. (Docket #7). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. (Docket #2). Because Plaintiff is no longer in custody, he must pay the remainder of the filing fee as he is able. 2. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 2.1 Federal Screening Standard Under the PLRA, the Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint if the prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard that applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats,

(7th Cir. 2017) (citing Booker-El v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison,

(7th Cir. 2012)). A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain enough facts, accepted as true, to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(citing Twombly,

). To state a claim for relief under

, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law. D.S. v. E. Porter Cnty. Sch. Corp.,

(7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee,

(7th Cir. 2009)). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cesal,

(citing Perez v. Fenoglio,

(7th Cir. 2015)). 2.2 Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff’s allegations are brief: Judge Vincent Biskupic knowingly violated these following rights: pursuit of happyness [sic], false inprisonment [sic], loss of wage. He had put me on a false term of probation, for over 19 months sentence me to false term of imprisonment of 6 months. Had also sentenced me twice for the same crime, which is double jeopardy. This had happened from October 2015 to September 2017 at the Outagamie County Court House Branch [] Vincent Biskupic believes he knew the law thought he was helping when he was not helping. (Docket #1 at 2–3). Plaintiff has a significant number of cases originating in Outagamie County, and the Court does not know which case is at issue in Plaintiff’s allegations. 2.3 Analysis Judicial immunity establishes that judges have immunity from liability for their judicial acts; “judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice, the existence of which ordinarily cannot be resolved without engaging in discovery and eventual trial.” Mireles v. Waco,

(1991). Here, Plaintiff attempts to bring a suit against Judge Vincent Biskupic for his decisions in one of Plaintiff’s criminal cases before him. Judge Biskupic is immune from such a suit. The Court will dismiss this action. 3. CONCLUSION Because Judge Biskupic is protected by judicial immunity, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case against him. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be the and same is hereby DISMISSED under

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because the complaint fails to state a claim; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has incurred a “strike” under

(g); and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff pay the $350.00 balance of the filing fee as he is able. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of March, 2022. BY THE COURT:

—

NY J. R. Stadffmateller U.S. District Judge

This Order and the judgment to follow are final. A dissatisfied party may appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. of App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the thirty-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be non-meritorious. See 28

Page 4 of

(g). If Plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serous physical injury.

Under limited circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline. See Fed. R. Civ P. 6(b)(2). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time, generally no more than one year after the entry of the judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).

A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a case.