Davis v. MeirDavis v. Meir
Plaintiff Ryan Davis, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at the John C. Burke Correctional Center and representing himself, filed a complaint under
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE
Davis has requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff prоceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See
SCREENING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seеks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and dismiss any complaint, or portion thereof, if the prisoner has raised any 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.
“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a cоmplaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Aсcording to Davis, on October 14, 2025, he went to the medication window to get his dose of Tramadol, a narcotic that had been prescribed for ankle pain. After he took the medication, Defendant Nurse Meier dirеcted him to run his fingers along his gum line, stick out his tongue, and raise his tongue to ensure he had swallowed the pill. Davis asserts that he refused to put his fingers in his mouth, explaining to the nurse that there had been several outbreaks within the institution such as norovirus and E. coli and he did not want to risk getting sick. Nurse Meier allegedly told him to comply or he would receive a conduct report for disobeying orders. Davis asserts that he brought the issue to a nearby sergeant’s attention, but he was directed to follow orders. It is not clear how the interaction resolved, but it does not appear that Davis received a conduct report. For the next three days, Davis refused to take the pain medication after confirming with Nurse Meier that she would require him to run his fingers along his gum line to ensure he had swallowed the pill. He states that he had throbbing pain in his ankle that woke him up at night.
On October 25, 2025, Davis filed an inmate comрlaint. He states that, even though policy required only that healthcare staff conduct a visual inspection of a patient’s mouth, Defendant T. Gillingham recommended dismissal of the inmate complaint. Later, Defendаnt Emily Davidson recommended affirming the dismissal. Davis explains that, eventually, the inmate complaint was affirmed, with the Corrections Complaint Examiner noting that, to prevent infection, residents should not be required to place their fingers in their mouths. Dkt. No. 3.
Davis asserts that Nurse Meier violated the Eighth Amendment when she ordered him to put his fingers in his mouth so she could confirm that he had swallowed his pain medication. According to Davis, this order exposed him to a risk of contracting an infection. Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials must take reasonable measures to ensure an inmate’s safety.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)). “To state a claim premised on prison officials’ failure to protect him from harm, [a plaintiff] must allege that the defendants knew of and disregarded an ‘excessive risk’ to his ‘health and safety.’” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). That said, “[t]he standard in this circuit is clear: an inmate who suffers only a risk of physical harm has no compensable claim under the Eighth Amendment.” Saunders v. Tourville, 97 F. App‘x 648, 649 (7th Cir. 2004); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 272 (7th Cir.1996) (explaining that while a plaintiff may recover monetary damages under the Eighth Amendment for “failure to prevent harm,” the plaintiff is not entitled to monetary compensation for the mere “failure to prevent exposure to [a] risk of harm”).
Allegations that Nurse Meier exposed Davis to a risk of contracting an infection when she directed him to run his fingers along his gumline do not state a compensable claim. Davis only speculates that he could have contracted an infection from putting his fingers in his mouth, and he faces no future risk of contracting an infection because the policy has since been clarified that healthcare staff should not require patients to put their fingers in their mouths. Given that the danger that Davis asserts he was exposed to never materialized, he has suffered no compensable harm. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 864 (7th Cir. 2011) (“In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must ‘establish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional rights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or damages.’”). Davis explains that he suffered ankle pain
The Cоurt acknowledges that a prisoner may maintain an Eighth Amendment claim even in the absence of physical injury if a prison official maliciously or sadistically exposed a prisoner to a risk of harm. Babcock, 102 F.3d at 270. But the Court cannоt reasonably infer that Nurse Meier’s instructions were “for the very purpose of causing harm,” see Whitely v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986); see also Czapiewski v. Thomas, No. 16-cv-426, 2017 WL 1274160, at *2-3 (E.D. Wis. April 3, 2017). Rather, the only reasonable inference is that she chose a more exacting method to confirm that Davis had swallowed his medication (a narcotic) rather than hide it along his gumline. Her failure to execute the policy as it was later construed is at most negligence, which is not actionable under the Constitution. Sеe Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). And even assuming she knowingly violated the department’s policy, a “violation of a prison policy alone does not violate the Constitution or suggest deliberate indifference.” Schroeder v. Sawall, 747 Fed. App’x 429, 431 (7th Cir. 2019).
Finally, Davis does not state a сlaim against Gillingham or Davidson based on allegations that they mishandled his inmate complaint. “Prison grievance procedures are not mandated by the First Amendment and do not by their very existence create interests рrotected by the Due Process Clause, and so the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007)).
The Seventh Cirсuit has explained that the norm is to afford a plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend his complaint. See Zimmerman v. Bornick, 25 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Davis’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 31, 2026, Davis may file an amended complaint if he believes he can cure the defects in the original complaint as dеscribed in this decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Davis a blank prisoner amended complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Davis shall collect from his institution trust account the $334.23 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Davis’ prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Davis is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all inmates of Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution, and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities must submit the original document for eаch filing to the Court to the following address:
Honorable William C. Griesbach
c/o Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102
Green Bay, WI 54301
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the matter.
Davis is further advised that failure to make a timely submission 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. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties.
Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 5th day of August, 2026.
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge