Biese v. Kind, 1:17-cv-00228

Plaintiff Benjamin Biese, a state prisoner at Green Bay Correctional Institution, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging Defendant John Kind sexually assaulted him on February 13, 2017, causing pain and emotional trauma.
Biese sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); he submitted the required six‑month trust account statement and was assessed an initial partial fee of $2.41 but lacked funds to pay it.
The court waived the initial partial filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) and ordered collection of the remaining $350 filing fee by monthly installments (20% of monthly deposits) per § 1915(b)(2).
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Biese’s sexual‑assault allegation sufficient to proceed against Defendant Kind under the Eighth Amendment (unwanted touching can violate constitutional rights).
Biese also moved for access to courts, court documents, and the law library, claiming placement in heightened detention restricted his access and communications.
The court denied the access motion, concluding Biese failed to show how restrictions prejudiced any potentially meritorious legal challenge and noting library access may be limited for security reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff may proceed IFP and payment terms	Biese lacks funds to pay filing fee and initial partial fee	(Not argued in opinion) Court must follow statutory IFP rules	IFP granted; initial partial fee waived; remainder collected per § 1915(b)(2)
Whether complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim for sexual assault	Biese alleges unwanted touching/sexual assault by Kind causing pain and trauma	(Not argued in opinion) Dismissal possible if frivolous or implausible	Claim allowed to proceed against Kind — allegation plausible and non‑frivolous
Whether restrictions denied Biese meaningful access to the courts	Biese claims ultra‑secure detention prevented access to courts, documents, law library, and limited mail	Restrictions justified by security; plaintiff must show prejudice to a meritorious claim	Motion denied — plaintiff did not show how restrictions hindered any meritorious challenge; library access can be limited for security
Service and case processing instructions	Biese sought court assistance accessing materials	(Not applicable as to Defendant) Court must order service and set filing procedures	Court ordered electronic service via DOJ, required Kind to answer, and set prisoner e‑filing and mailing procedures

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (legal frivolousness standard)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness and dismissal standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and evaluating conclusions)
Washington v. Hively, 695 F.3d 641 (unwanted touching can constitute constitutional violation in prison context)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (prisoners’ right of access to courts requires adequate legal resources)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (access‑to‑courts claim requires showing prejudice to a meritorious claim)
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965 (denial of library access actionable only if it prejudices a meritorious challenge)