UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KIRK ROBERT CHRIST MICKELSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-CV-1343-JPS v.

DODGE COUNTY DETENTION ORDER CENTER, CAPTAIN SMITH, SERGEANT LAUGHLIN, SERGEANT POLSIN, SERGEANT WEBER, SERGEANT KNOLL, VITAL CARE, NURSE DON, NURSE DAWN, NURSE VAL NEHLS, NURSE GINNY, NURSE JANE DOES 1-2, and SUPERVISING NURSES,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Kirk Robert Christ Mickelson, an inmate confined at the Ozaukee County Jail, filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. ECF No. 1. Shortly after paying the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 14. This Order screens Plaintiff’s amended complaint and resolves his motions for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee 1. MOTIONS 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 November 13, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $32.00. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff paid that fee on January 8, 2025. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, ECF No. 2, and will deny the duplicative motion, ECF No. 5, as moot. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this Order. 2. SCREENING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 2.1 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)). 2.2 Analysis Plaintiff’s original complaint named numerous defendants in relation to their failure to provide him with adequate medical treatment. See ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to name any defendants. See ECF No. 14. Instead, Plaintiff asks the Court to “change the list of defendants to those who are and can actually be held liable….” Id. at 5. While the Court understands that Plaintiff proceeds pro se and accordingly liberally construes all filings, the Court will not choose defendants for Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s amended complaint mentions numerous individuals and it is unclear specifically who Plaintiff wishes to bring claims against. For example, the Court assumes Plaintiff does not wish to bring claims against the Deputy U.S. Marshalls who brought him into custody; however, the lack of clarity in the amended complaint leaves that question open. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim against any defendants and will allow him the opportunity to file another amended complaint. In order to aid Plaintiff in drafting an amended complaint, the Court provides the following information. For a prison official to be personally liable, he or she must have participated in some way with the alleged constitutional violation. Vance v. Peters,

(7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If Plaintiff does not currently know the names of the staff who denied him treatment, he may refer to them simply as Doe defendants and he can attempt to identify them at a later date. However, if Plaintiff names specific defendants, he must explain how each defendant was involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Additionally, the Court notes that a jail or detention center is not a “person” for the purposes of § 1983 and therefore not a suable entity. See Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail,

(7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he district court was correct that, in listing the Knox County Jail as the sole defendant, [Plaintiff] named a non-suable entity.”). As to private entity liability, Section 1983 grants a private right of action against a “person” who acts under color of state law to deprive another of rights under federal law, including the Constitution. A key part of § 1983’s doctrinal structure is the difference between individual and governmental liability. In Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York,

(1978), the United States Supreme Court found that a plaintiff may proceed against a municipal government so long as a constitutional violation was caused by: (1) an express government policy; (2) a widespread and persistent practice that amounted to a custom approaching the force of law; or (3) an official with final policymaking authority. 436 U.S. at 690–91; Glisson v. Ind. Dep't of Correction,

(7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). In a case against a private contractor that provides healthcare to incarcerated people, the “critical question” for liability is “whether a municipal (or corporate) policy or custom gave rise to the harm (that is, caused it).” Glisson,

. The Court will provide Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint on or before March 25, 2025. When writing his second amended complaint, Plaintiff should provide the Court with enough facts to answer the following questions: (1) Who violated his constitutional rights?; (2) What did each person do to violate his rights?; (3) Where did each person violate his rights?; and (4) When did each person violate his rights? Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not need to be long or contain legal language or citations to statutes or cases, but it does need to provide the Court and each Defendant with notice of what each Defendant allegedly did or did not do to violate his rights. The Court is enclosing a copy of its amended complaint form and instructions. Plaintiff must list all of the defendants in the caption of his second amended complaint. He should use the spaces on pages two and three to allege the key facts that give rise to the claims he wishes to bring, and to describe which defendants he believes committed the violations that relate to each claim. If the space is not enough, Plaintiff may use up to five additional sheets of paper. Plaintiff is advised that the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84,

(7th Cir. 1998). In Duda, the appellate court emphasized that in such instances, the “prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the amended pleading.”

(citation omitted). If the second amended complaint is received, it will become the operative complaint in this action, and the Court will screen it in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 3. CONCLUSION 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 Plaintiff’s duplicative motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, ECF No. 5, be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint, ECF No. 14, fails to state a claim; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this Order on or before March 25, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will dismiss this case based on his failure to state a claim in his amended complaint and will issue him a “strike” under

(g); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect from his institution trust account the $318.00 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 blank prisoner amended complaint form and 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 4th day of March, 2025. cA T — ve NY P. Staftayeller 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: 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. Page 7 of 8

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.