UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JONATHAN OLIVER TONYAN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 24-CV-1373-JPS

KYHEIM OUTLAW and MICHAEL MAYER, ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jonathan Oliver Tonyan, an inmate confined at Racine Correctional Institute, filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. ECF No. 1. On January 3, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that if failed to state a claim, and allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 9. On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 10. This Order screens Plaintiff’s amended complaint. 1. FEDERAL SCREENING STANDARD Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 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 a 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. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff alleges that he was in the dayroom playing cards with two other inmates on June 2, 2024. ECF No. 10 at 2. One of the inmates, Tyler Kirejrcyk, got mad at Plaintiff, punched him in the nose, and caused Plaintiff to bleed for five to ten minutes.

Defendant Kyheim Outlaw (“Outlaw”) saw Plaintiff’s nose bleeding. Plaintiff asked Outlaw for medical help, but Outlaw told Plaintiff he would have to wait until Monday. Id. at 3. Plaintiff told Outlaw again at medication pass that his nose hurt and asked for medical treatment. Id. Defendant Security Director Michael Mayer violated Plaintiff’s rights by violating department rules and not informing Plaintiff of his rights in a disciplinary hearing. Id. 3. ANALYSIS First, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not state an Eighth Amendment claim against any defendants for their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 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,

). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege facts that Defendants were involved in denying him care for a serious medical need. First, the facts do not suggest that Plaintiff was suffering a serious medical condition under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that his nose stopped bleeding after five to ten minutes. Outlaw told Plaintiff he would have to wait until Monday for medical treatment, which appears to have been the following day. Inmates, like most of the population, wait for medical treatment based on a medical need. As currently alleged, Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that he needed immediate medical attention that could not wait one day. Further, Plaintiff alleges no facts to show that the one-day delay in treatment exacerbated or unnecessarily prolonged Plaintiff’s pain. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a deliberate indifference claim against any defendants. The Court also finds that Plaintiff may not proceed against any defendants for a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a deprivation of liberty without due process. A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison disciplinary proceeding must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or property interest that the state has interfered with; and (2) the procedures he was afforded upon that deprivation were constitutionally deficient. Scruggs v. Jordan,

(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Rowe v. DeBruyn,

(7th Cir. 1994)). “A prisoner’s liberty interest, and incumbent entitlement to procedural due process protections, generally extends only to freedom from deprivations that ‘impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Lekas v. Briley,

(7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sandin v. Conner,

, 483– 84 (1995)). In the absence of an “atypical and significant” deprivation, the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause are not triggered.

Disciplinary segregation can trigger due process protections. Marion v. Columbia Correctional Inst.,

(7th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). When making the determination whether an inmate is entitled to such protections, courts analyze “the combined import of the duration of the segregative confinement and the conditions endured by the prisoner during that period.”

If conditions in segregation are significantly harsher than those in the normal prison environment, then a liberty interest may arise even when the duration of the segregation, standing alone, would not trigger such an interest.

at 697–98. On the one hand, “six months of segregation is ‘not such an extreme term’ and, standing alone, would not trigger due process rights.”

at 698 (quoting Whitford v. Boglino,

(7th Cir. 1995)). On the other end of the spectrum, transfer to a maximum-security prison and placement in segregated confinement for an indefinite duration where virtually all sensory and environmental stimuli are denied, little human contact is permitted, and prisoners otherwise eligible for parole are disqualified from parole eligibility, taken together, impose an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context.

at 697 (citing Wilkinson v. Austin,

(2005)). Once a liberty or property interest has been invoked, the Court looks to what process was due. Prison disciplinary hearings satisfy procedural due process requirements where an inmate is provided: (1) written notice of the charge against the prisoner twenty four (24) hours prior to the hearing; (2) the right to appear in person before an impartial body; (3) the right to call witnesses and to present physical/documentary evidence, but only when doing so will not unduly jeopardize the safety of the institution or correctional goals; and (4) a written statement of the reasons for the action taken against the prisoner. See Wolff v. McDonnell,

, 563– 69 (1974); Cain v. Lane,

(7th Cir. 1988). Not only must the requirements of Wolff be satisfied, but the decision of the disciplinary hearing board must be supported by “some evidence.” Black v. Lane,

(7th Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain facts showing that Defendants interfered with a liberty interest. Plaintiff alleges only that Mayer failed to inform Plaintiff of his rights in a disciplinary hearing; he alleges no facts regarding any punishment he received. On these facts alone, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff suffered an atypical and significant deprivation. See Marion,

. Accordingly, based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest. As such, Plaintiff may not proceed on a due process claim. 4. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court finds that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was already provided the opportunity to amend his complaint based on the Court’s guidance in the prior screening order, and the Court therefore finds that further amendment would be futile. See Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind.,

, 519–20 (7th Cir. 2015). As such, the Court will dismiss the case for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and will issue him a “strike” under

(g). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED under

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

(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of February, 2025 i \ RE ) RV fe NY J.8. Stad trftereller 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 $605.00 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 a “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be non-meritorious. See

(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 serious 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.

Page 7 of 7