Williams v. Eckl
2:22-cv-01189
E.D. Wis.Nov 7, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Jovan Williams, a Wisconsin state prisoner at Columbia Correctional Institution, filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint alleging Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violations while on clinical observation beginning October 9, 2019.
- While on observation Williams was issued only a smock and a security mat, had no clothing, blanket, or bedding, and alleges the cell was very cold and filthy (bodily fluids on mat, floor, vent, door).
- For five days Williams repeatedly asked multiple defendants (correctional officers and staff) to clean the cell, provide a blanket, or increase heat; he alleges those requests were ignored or denied, causing illness and injury.
- Williams had a one-time tax-refund deposit in his account shortly before filing; he moved to reconsider the large initial partial filing fee assessed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).
- Court waived the initial partial filing fee under §1915(b)(4) given the one-time deposit, granted Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed Superintendent Berres for failure to state a claim, denied Williams’ motion for free copies, and ordered service on the remaining named defendants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP initial partial fee amount | One-time tax refund was seized for debts and Williams had no usable funds; waiver needed | Statute requires 20% of average monthly deposits including the one-time deposit | Court waived the initial partial fee under §1915(b)(4) and granted IFP; fee collected over time |
| Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim | Williams alleges five days nearly naked in cold, filthy cell; requests for blanket/cleaning ignored | Defendants dispute deliberate indifference (not detailed) | Complaint states a plausible conditions-of-confinement claim against the named defendants (except Berres); allowed to proceed |
| Claim against Superintendent Berres | Berres responsible for monitoring cell temperature and thus liable | Berres had no knowledge Williams lacked blanket/clothing and thus could not be deliberately indifferent | Claim dismissed for failure to state a claim; Berres lacked requisite knowledge |
| Motion for free copies / ECF access | Requests free copies of any document he e-files with the Court | Court policy grants one free electronic copy to ECF-registered users; Williams is not an ECF user and originals are returned by institution | Motion denied; Williams not entitled to free copies under the Court’s ECF policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth for pleading plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement standard)
- Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (conditions-of-confinement precedent)
- Wheeler v. Walker, [citation="303 F. App'x 356"] (7th Cir. 2008) (conditions-of-confinement precedent)