UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KRISCILLA K. MCHENRY,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-CV-70-JPS

DR. DOROTHY FRANCESCA DETRANA, ORDER

Defendant.

Plaintiff Kriscilla K. McHenry, an inmate confined at Taycheedah Correctional Institution (“TCI”), filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that Defendant Dr. Dorothy Francesca Detrana (“Detrana”) violated her constitutional rights. This Order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and screens her 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 she filed her complaint. See

(h). The PLRA allows the Court to give a prisoner plaintiff the ability to proceed with her 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). She must then pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from her prisoner account.

On April 3, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $46.60. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff paid that fee on May 10, 2023. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2. She must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this Order. 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 her of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that whoever deprived her 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 claim is related to Detrana denying her medical care at TCI in February 2022. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff saw Detrana on February 8, 2022, when she complained of her chest being tight.

Detrana told Plaintiff that she did not want to send her out if there was no need.

Detrana was aware that Plaintiff has sickle cell anemia.

Detrana refused to provide Plaintiff any medication to help relieve Plaintiff’s pain.

Plaintiff had previously seen a hematologist who recommended restrictions on standing but Detrana constantly ignored this recommendation.

at 2–3. Plaintiff became progressively sicker during the month of February; Plaintiff saw Detrana several times that month. Id. at 3. On February 20, 2022, Plaintiff passed out when going for help. Id. Detrana did not see Plaintiff until February 22, 2022, despite the fact that Plaintiff had suffered a medical crisis. Id. Detrana told Plaintiff to walk into Detrana’s office, but Plaintiff responded that she could not get out of her wheelchair due to her excruciating pain. Id. Plaintiff informed Detrana that Plaintiff felt wheezing in her lungs, but Detrana said she could not hear it. Id. Plaintiff was sent to the medical observation unit for two days. Id. Plaintiff telephoned her home and said she did not think she was “going to make it.” Id. Plaintiff had been using her blow dryer to keep warm to try and relieve her pain. Id. Plaintiff suffered from oxygen loss in her brain as a result of not receiving proper medical treatment. Id. On March 5, 2022, Plaintiff called access to care at 10:30 p.m. Id. at 3– 4. Nurse Hiland arrived and saw Plaintiff was on five liters of oxygen and struggling to breath. Id. at 4. Nurse Hiland called for an ambulance and Plaintiff was taken to the ICU with acute chest syndrome and pneumonia. Id. Plaintiff now suffers from memory loss because of Detrana’s actions. Id. 2.3 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed against Detrana for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim for her indifference to Plaintiff’s medical need. The Eighth Amendment secures an inmate’s right to medical care. Prison officials violate this right when they “display deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” Greeno v. Daley,

(7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Deliberate indifference claims contain both an objective and a subjective component: the inmate “must first establish that his medical condition is objectively, ‘sufficiently serious,’; and second, that prison officials acted with a ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind,’ i.e., that they both knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health.” Lewis v. McLean,

, 562–63 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994) (internal citations omitted)). “A delay in treating non-life-threatening but painful conditions may constitute deliberate indifference if the delay exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate’s pain.” Arnett v. Webster,

(7th Cir. 2011) (citing McGowan v. Hulick,

(7th Cir. 2010)). The length of delay that is tolerable “‘depends on the seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing treatment.’”

(quoting McGowan,

). At the screening stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed against Detrana. Plaintiff alleges a potentially serious medical condition of chest pain and that Detrana denied her medical care and ignored her pain for weeks. As such, Plaintiff may proceed against Detrana for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim for her indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. 3. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed on the following claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b): Claim One: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Detrana for her indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. The Court has enclosed with this Order guides prepared by court staff to address common questions that arise in cases filed by prisoners. These guides are entitled, “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro Se Litigants’ Common Questions.” They contain information that Plaintiff may find useful in prosecuting her case. Defendant should take note that, within forty-five (45) days of service of this Order, she is to file a summary judgment motion that raises all exhaustion-related challenges. The Court will issue a scheduling order at a later date that embodies other relevant deadlines. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, ECF No. 2, be and the same is hereby GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, a copy of the complaint and this Order have been electronically transmitted to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Defendant Detrana; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that under the informal service agreement, Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty (60) days; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant raise any exhaustion- related challenges by filing a motion for summary judgment within forty- five (45) days of service; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Defendant contemplates a motion to dismiss, the parties must meet and confer before the motion is filed. Defendant should take care to explain the reasons why she intends to move to dismiss the complaint, and Plaintiff should strongly consider filing an amended complaint. The Court expects this exercise in efficiency will obviate the need to file most motions to dismiss. Indeed, when the Court grants a motion to dismiss, it typically grants leave to amend unless it is “certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Harris v. Meisner, No. 20-2650,

, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021) (quoting Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind.,

(7th Cir. 2015)). Therefore, it is in both parties’ interest to discuss the matter prior to motion submissions. Briefs in support of, or opposition to, motions to dismiss should cite no more than ten (10) cases per claim. No string citations will be accepted. If Defendant files a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff is hereby warned that she must file a response, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7 (E.D. Wis.), or she may be deemed to have waived any argument against dismissal and face dismissal of this matter with prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect from her institution trust account the $303.40 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with

(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this case. If Plaintiff is transferred to another county, state, or federal institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order along with her remaining balance to the receiving institution; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Plaintiff is confined; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Plaintiff a copy of the guides entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions” and “Answers to Pro Se Litigants’ Common Questions,” along with this Order. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 19th day of May, 2023. BY THE COURT:

np

NY J.B. Stadfraueller U.S. District Judge

Plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions shall submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. Prisoner E-Filing is mandatory for all inmates at Columbia Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.

Page 7 of 8

Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities, or who have been released from custody, will be required to submit all correspondence and legal material to: Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin 362 United States Courthouse 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. If mail is received directly to the Court’s chambers, IT WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER AND WILL NOT BE FILED IN THE CASE. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely file any brief, motion, response, or reply may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED ADDRESS TO THE COURT AND MAIL IS RETURNED TO THE COURT AS UNDELIVERABLE, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.