UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LADELL A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-C-782

SGT. MATTHEW HAUPT and DIETRICH,

Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Ladell Evans, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Green Bay Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed a complaint under

, alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes before the Court on Evans’ motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint. MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE Plaintiff Ladell Evans has requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See

(b)(1). Evans has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as required under

(a)(2), and has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $0.78. Evans’ motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee will be granted. SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT The Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, and dismiss any complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised any 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 screening a complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must be at least sufficient to provide notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well as when and where the alleged actions or inactions occurred, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. “The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

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

(2007)). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

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

. “[T]he complaint’s allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

(internal quotations omitted). ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT Evans asserts that on February 24, 2023, he informed Defendant Sgt. Matthew Haupt that he needed to go on clinical observation because he was going to hurt himself. Haupt allegedly tried to make small talk with Evans but eventually walked away. Evans states that within minutes

he started violently banging his head on the edge of his cell door window. About twenty minutes later, Defendant Dietrich conducted a wellness round and, after seeing Evans engaging in self- harm, kept walking. Less than an hour later, Dietrich conducted another wellness round, at which time Evans informed her he was engaging in self-harm. Evans asserts that she ignored him and kept walking. Evans asserts that he kept engaging in self-harm until his forehead split open above his right eye. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. According to Evans, Haupt then conducted a wellness round, at which time Evans told him he needed to go on clinical observation because he was harming himself. Evans states that he also told him he needed to see health services because he was bleeding. Evans asserts that Haupt ignored him and kept walking. Evans explains that, at no time, did Haupt or Dietrich contact a

supervisor, medical staff, or psychological services. According to Evans, he was not seen for his head wound until the next shift, at which time his forehead was glued shut. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are aware of an objectively serious risk of harm to an inmate and knowingly or recklessly disregard it. See Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994). The duty imposed on prison officials extends to protecting inmates from imminent threats of serious self-harm, and the “obligation to intervene covers self-destructive behaviors up to and including suicide.” Miranda v. Cty. of Lake,

(7th Cir. 2018). Evans may proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Haupt and Dietrich based on allegations that they both ignored Evans after he informed them that he was going to harm himself and after they observed him harming himself. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Evans’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, copies of Evans’ complaint and this order are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on Matthew Haupt and Dietrich. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this Court, Matthew Haupt and Dietrich shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Evans shall collect from his institution trust account the $349.22 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Evans’ prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income

credited to the prisoner’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 action. If Evans is transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order along with Evans’ 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 Evans is confined. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may not begin discovery until after the Court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all inmates of Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge

Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution, and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities must submit the original document for each filing to the Court to the following address: Honorable William C. Griesbach c/o Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin 125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102 Green Bay, WI 54301 PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the matter. Evans is further advised that failure to make a timely submission 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. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 15th day of August, 2023. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge