UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SHAWN ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-cv-1744-bbc

HEIDI MICHEL, Defendant.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Shawn Rogers, who is currently confined at the Brown County Jail and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes before the Court on Rogers’ motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint. MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE Rogers has requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). Rogers filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2), and was assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.53. On November 20, 2025, Rogers filed a letter explaining that he has $0.00 in his inmate account and is unable to pay the initial partial filing fee. The Court finds that Rogers lacks the assets and means to pay the initial partial filing fee, so the Court will waive his obligation to pay the fee and will grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(4). SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT The Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and must 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. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). In screening a complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must be at least sufficient to provide notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well as when and where the alleged actions or inactions occurred, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. “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 complaint 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 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 556. “[T]he complaint’s allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555 (internal quotations omitted). ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT According to Rogers, he received a sanction of forty-five days segregation and fifteen days loss of recreation. He asserts that, on September 28, 2025, Captain Heidi Michel upheld the sanction, violating Wisconsin Administrative Code 350.33(3) and the Eighth Amendment. ANALYSIS

While not clear, it appears that Rogers, who is a pretrial detainee, asserts that Michel violated his constitutional rights when she approved a fifteen-day, loss-of-recreation disciplinary sanction. While a lack of exercise can rise to a constitutional violation “where movement is denied and muscles are allowed to atrophy and the health of the individual is threatened,” Rogers fails to state a claim because a fifteen-day denial of recreation is not a “sufficiently serious constitutional deprivation.” Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 313 (7th Cir. 2015); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Lack of exercise may rise to a constitutional violation in extreme and prolonged situations where movement is denied to the point that the inmate’s health is threatened.”).

Rogers also asserts that the sanction violated Wisconsin law, but whether t prison authorities followed Wisconsin law is neither here nor there, as “a constitutional suit is not a way to enforce state law through the back door.” Wozniak v. Adesida, 932 F.3d 1008, 1011 (7th Cir. 2019). In any event, under Wisconsin law, recreation time is a privilege that may be restricted as a sanction for violation of the jail’s rules. See Wis. Admin. Code DOC §350.24. Accordingly, Rogers fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Seventh Circuit 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). Accordingly, if Rogers believes he can cure the deficiencies identified in this decision, he may file an amended complaint by January 9, 2026. He is advised that an amended complaint will replace the original complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1998). If an amended complaint is received by the deadline, the Court will screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. If an amended complaint is not received, the Court will dismiss this action

based on Rogers’ failure to state a claim in his original complaint. If Rogers does not believe he can cure the deficiencies identified in this decision, he does not have to do anything further. The Court will enclose an amended complaint form along with this decision. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rogers’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 9, 2026, Rogers may file an amended complaint if he believes he can cure the defects in the original complaint as described in this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Rogers a blank prisoner

amended complaint form and a copy of the guide entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions” along with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Rogers shall collect from his institution trust account the $350 filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Rogers’ 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 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this action. If Rogers is transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order along with Rogers remaining balance to the receiving institution. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Rogers 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 each filing to the Court to the following address: Honorable Byron B. Conway 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. Rogers 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 on December 15, 2025. s/ Byron B. Conway BYRON B. CONWAY United States District Judge