Green, Damien v. Baier, Cassandra
3:24-cv-00296
W.D. Wis.Nov 26, 2024Background
- Damien Green, an incarcerated plaintiff at Green Bay Correctional Institution, alleges inadequate medical care for his foot (requiring surgery to remove a screw) and bladder (inadequate supply of catheters, leading to infections).
- Green did not pay the $405 filing fee, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- He is subject to the "three strikes" rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars further IFP lawsuits unless he alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The court found Green’s claims met the imminent danger requirement, but his complaint was too vague regarding what each defendant did.
- The court dismissed his complaint but allowed Green an opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying each defendant’s alleged conduct, and to submit a trust account statement. His motion for intervention regarding legal mail/writing supplies was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP under "three strikes" rule | Green alleges imminent danger from untreated medical conditions | N/A | Court finds imminent danger adequately alleged, allowing limited IFP |
| Eighth Amendment—failure to follow prescribed specialist care | Defendants not providing specialist-prescribed foot/bladder treatment | N/A | Allegations state a potential claim but are too vague as pled |
| Pleading specificity | General allegations against multiple defendants without specifics | N/A | Complaint dismissed; must specify each defendant's wrongful acts |
| Court intervention in mail/supplies | Requests court intervene in alleged mail/writing implements issues | N/A | Denied, finding no immediate need for court intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (standard for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328 (interpretation of imminent danger exception to 3-strikes rule)
- Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (serious medical need definition)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requirement)
- Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364 (criteria for serious medical needs)
- Snipes v. Detella, 95 F.3d 586 (awareness and disregard elements for Eighth Amendment claims)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (failure to follow specialist recommendations and pleading standard)