Gill v. Meyer
| Docket Number | 23-cv-256-pp |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | CHARLES B. GILL, SR., Plaintiff, v. AUTUMN MEYER, LIZA NAUMANN, JOSEPH TEIGEN, TRACEY KIEYA, JENNIFER SCHUBART, RYAN BRAUN, ALEX JOHNSON, DANIEL RUNNING, CAPT. SCHMIDT, LT. WILLSON and LT. BEAUVIAS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C §1915A
Charles B. Gill, Sr., who is incarcerated at Stanley Correctional Institution and is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. On March 13, 2023, the court received the plaintiff's amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10. Because the court had not yet screened the original complaint when it received the amended complaint, this decision resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, and screens the amended complaint, dkt. no. 10.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(h). The PLRA lets the court allow an incarcerated plaintiff to proceed with without prepaying the civil case filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). When funds exist, the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). He then must pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prison trust account. Id.
On March 10, 2023, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $11.40. Dkt. No. 9. The court received that fee on March 27, 2023. The court will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and will require him to pay the remainder of the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end of this order.
Under the PLRA, the court must screen complaints brought by incarcerated persons seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint if the incarcerated person 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 amended complaint states a claim, the court applies the same standard that it applies when considering whether to dismiss a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Booker-El v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison, 668 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2012)). To state a claim, the amended 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 amended complaint must contain enough facts, “accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, 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 Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The court construes liberally complaints filed by plaintiffs who are representing themselves and holds such complaints to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720 (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)).
The amended complaint names as defendants Autumn Meyer, Liza Naumann, Joseph Teigen, Tracey Kieya, Jennifer Schubart, Daniel Running, Alex Johnson, Captain Schmidt, Lieutenants Willson and Beauvias and Ryan Braun. Dkt. No. 10 at 1-3. The amended complaint alleges that defendant Teigen works for the Grand Chute Police Department; defendant Kieya works for the Rodeway Inn Motel in Grand Chute; defendants Schubart and Braun work for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC); defendants Running and Johnson work for the Outagamie County District Attorney's Office; and defendants Schmidt, Willson and Beauvias work for the Outagamie County Sheriff's Department. Id. The amended complaint sues the defendants in their individual and official capacities. Id. at 3.
The plaintiff alleges that on December 28, 2022, Naumann falsely told probation agent Schubart that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her and that he had guns and drugs in Room 248 at the Rodeway Inn Hotel. Id. at 3. The plaintiff alleges that Schubart falsely reported what Naumann had told her in an effort to have him arrested and “to deprive him of his liberty in some way.” Id. Schubart allegedly told Sergeant Teigen that “her client had disclosed allegations of sexual assault” by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's room 248 at the Rodeway Inn Hotel contained drugs and guns “possibly.” Id. at 3-4. At about 1:30 p.m., Teigen and Lieutenant Blahnik (who is not a defendant) arrived at the Rodeway Inn and saw the plaintiff enter room 252 (not room 248). Id. at 4. The plaintiff later exited room 252, approached both officers and, in response to being asked who he was, identified himself. Id. The officers “grabbed” the plaintiff and detained him. Id. The officers handcuffed and searched the plaintiff but did not find anything on his person, and Officer Tucker (also not a defendant) took the plaintiff to the Outagamie County Jail. Id. Sergeant Teigen searched hotel rooms 203 and 248. Id. He found defendant Meyer and her two cats in room 248, and Meyer later claimed (the plaintiff says falsely) that the plaintiff had been in room 248 “for about a month” and had sexually assaulted her. Id. at 4-5. She also told Teigen that she witnessed the plaintiff “smoke crack.” Id. at 5. The plaintiff says there have been no sexual assault charges filed as of the date of the amended complaint. Id. at 5.
The plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Teigen filed false charges against him. Id. He attached a District Attorney referral form related to these charges. Dkt. No. 10-1 at 32. The plaintiff says Teigen also filed a false police report about the incident based on Meyer's claims. Dkt. No. 10 at 5. He claims that Teigen took Meyer's words “alone,” discriminating against the plaintiff, who is Black, while Tiegen and Meyers are White. Id. The plaintiff alleges that he originally was charged with resisting arrest, felony bail jumping and possession of drug paraphernalia, but that Meyer has not been charged with any offenses “even though she was found in room 248 and was banned from the hotel property” in November 2022 because of a domestic dispute she had with her boyfriend. Id. The plaintiff claims that defendant Kieya is the manager of the Rodeway Inn Hotel, and he says that she violated his rights and defamed him on December 28, 2022 when she told police “that she thought [he] was staying in room 248”. Id. at 6.
On December 29, 2022, Assistant District Attorney Running filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff claims that Running falsely charged the plaintiff with burglary, criminal trespass and felony bail jumping, “as well as the ones refer[r]ed by Teigen.” Id. He attached a copy of the criminal complaint. Dkt. No. 10-1 at 15-18. The plaintiff appeared in court that afternoon, and Assistant District Attorney Johnson “did restate the defamatory claims against” the plaintiff, continuing to maliciously prosecute the plaintiff with what he says were false charges. Dkt. No. 10 at 6.
The plaintiff alleges that on January 11, 2023, Braun, who is a probation supervisor, “did in fact restate defamatory claims” against him when Braun filed a Notice of Violation, Recommended Action, Statement of Hearing Rights and Receipt. Id. at 6-7. The plaintiff attached the Notice. Dkt. No. 10-1 at 1924. The plaintiff asserts that on page 2 of the notice form, Braun checked the box under “Right of Offender” that said, “You have given a signed statement admitting the violations.” Id.[1] The plaintiff says the notice restates the false allegations that the plaintiff sexually assaulted Meyer and Naumann and possessed drug paraphernalia, and it wrongly claims that the plaintiff occupied a room at the Rodeway Inn “without permission from Rodeway Inn staff.” Dkt. No. 10 at 7. He claims Braun inflicted emotional distress “and did restate defamatory claims in written form on Jan. 11, 2023.” Id.
The plaintiff alleges that on January 25, 2023, after he had had read his paperwork, he noticed that Braun had checked the box indicating that the plaintiff had admitted the violations. Id. He says that he attempted to contact his attorney, “but his pin was blocked.” Id. He told Lieutenant Beauvias that his PIN was blocked and that he needed to call his lawyer, but Beauvias told the plaintiff to write to the lawyer. Id. The plaintiff says he attempted to write to his attorney consistent with Outagamie County Jail procedures, but Lieutenant Beauvias ignored his request. Id. On January 25 and 26, 2023, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial