UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAKE QUINN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-CV-1661-JPS

DENISE JARVELA, ORDER Defendant.

Plaintiff Jake Quinn, an inmate confined at the Kenosha County Detention Center (“KCDC”), filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. ECF No. 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 December 21, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $0.00. ECF No. 6. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. ECF No. 2. He 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 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 names Defendant Denise Jarvela (“Jarvela”) as the sole defendant in this case. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff suffers from migraines that cause him severe pain.

Plaintiff’s migraines are triggered by exposure to bright lights. Plaintiff endures migraine episodes lasting two to six hours, occurring three to four times daily, that cause pain, blurry vision, dizziness, and vomiting.

These migraines further worsen Plaintiff's pre-existing conditions of depression, bipolar disorder, and ADHD. Id. at 2. In November 2023, Plaintiff sought assistance at the Health Service Unit (“HSU”) within KCDC due to debilitating migraines. Id. The nurse practitioner at KCDC recommended the use of eyeglasses with slightly tinted lenses to alleviate the migraines and sensitivity to light. Id. Despite having the prescribed $50.00 eyeglasses brought to KCDC, as per medical staff approval, Plaintiff did not receive them. Id at 3. Despite filing grievances through the institution’s complaint system, Plaintiff's attempts to obtain the medically ordered eyeglasses went unanswered. Id. Jarvela not only denied Plaintiff’s access to the eyeglasses, but also issued an email to all KCDC staff explicitly instructing against providing them. Id. In an attempt to nullify the nurse practitioner’s order, Jarvela enlisted the help of her supervisor, Lieutenant Mikutus, but the order remained in place. Id. Plaintiff has a history of over fifteen years with KCDC and has had multiple confrontations with Jarvela, including an incident where Plaintiff spat at her. Id. at 4. Plaintiff contends that Jarvela’s animus towards him is a key factor in denying him necessary medical treatment. Id. Plaintiff argues that, irrespective of an inmate’s level of cooperation, constitutional guidelines must be adhered to by officers. Id. In this case, the deliberate withholding of prescribed medical treatment by a non-medical staff member constitutes a violation of the detainee’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. 2.3 Analysis Plaintiff alleges that he was a pretrial detainee during the relevant time period. ECF No. 1 at 1. A § 1983 claim that a state pretrial detainee has received inadequate medical care is predicated on the rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. James v. Hale,

(7th Cir. 2020) (citing Miranda v. County of Lake,

, 346–47 (7th Cir. 2018)). Claims of inadequate medical care while in pretrial detention are subject to an objective reasonableness standard.

The plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate objective unreasonableness, and he must make a two-part showing.

First, he must show that the defendant acted purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly when considering the consequences of her response to the medical condition at issue in the case.

(citing McCann v. Ogle County, Ill.,

(7th Cir. 2018)). Second, the plaintiff must show that the challenged conduct was objectively unreasonable given the totality of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Jarvela for denying him adequate medical care. Plaintiff alleges that Jarvela denied him access to medically necessary glasses to alleviate his painful and long-lasting migraines. As the pleading stage, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to proceed against Jarvela on a Fourteenth Amendment claim. 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: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Jarvela for denying pre-trial detainee Plaintiff adequate medical treatment. 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 his case. 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 the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the complaint and this order upon Defendant Jarvela pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff is advised that Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge for making or attempting such service.

(a). Although Congress requires the Court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service, it has not made any provision for these fees to be waived either by the Court or by the U.S. Marshals Service. The current fee for waiver-of-service packages is $8.00 per item mailed. The full fee schedule is provided at

(a)(2), (a)(3). The U.S. Marshals Service will give Plaintiff information on how to remit payment. The Court is not involved in collection of the fee; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jarvela shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint; 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 he must file a response, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7 (E.D. Wis.), or he 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 his institution trust account the $350.00 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 his 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 25th day of January, 2024. BY THE COURT:

np PUY ff Pa NJ J. . Stad/fmaaeller 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. 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:

Page 7 of 8

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.