UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

FREDRICK MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-CV-010

JAMES ELSINGER,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Fredrick Morris, who is confined at Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI) and representing himself, filed a complaint under

alleging that the defendant violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) On March 28, 2023, the court screened Morris’s complaint and found that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 13.) However, the court gave Morris an opportunity to amend his complaint. On April 18, 2023, Morris filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The court has jurisdiction to screen the amended complaint in light of Morris’s consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court. SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Federal Screening Standard Under the PLRA the court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief from a governmental entity or 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)). To state a claim 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 Atlantic 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

2 United States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under color of state law. D.S. v. E. Morris Cty. Sch. Corp.,

(7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. Cty. 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)). Morris’s Allegations Morris alleges that on January 28, 2021, he refused to participate in a hunger strike assessment conducted by the Health Services Unit (HSU). (ECF

No.18 at 2.) Defendant James Elsinger told Morris that he had to go to the HSU department in person to refuse the assessment. (Id.) Morris states that Elsinger violated Department of Adult Institutions (DAI) Policy # 300.00.57 because that policy does not require a prisoner to have to walk to the HSU to refuse an assessment. Analysis Morris claims that Elsinger violated his rights when he did not follow the

proper policy and made him walk to HSU to refuse the assessment. “Section 1983 protects against ‘constitutional violations, not violations of . . . departmental regulation and . . . practices[.]’” Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett,

(7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Scott v. Edinburg,

(7th Cir. 2003)). Because Morris alleges only a policy violation, he fails to state a claim under § 1983. His case is dismissed.

3 CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is 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 Morris has incurred a “strike” under

(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly. 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 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). 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 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).

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

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 8th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT

WILLIAM E. DUFFI United States Magistrate Judge