Glick, Ezekiel v. Zimmerman, Jim et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
EZEKIEL J. GLICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIM ZIMMERMAN,
TARA HOWARD,
JASON MEISTER,
JORGE PACHECO,
JODY WILHELM,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
25-cv-228-wmc
Representing himself, plaintiff Ezekiel J. Glick filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against several officials employed at the Lincoln County Jail in Merrill, Wisconsin.
(Dkt. #1.) Because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the
court must screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from an immune
defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court must accept the
complaint’s allegations as true and construe them generously, holding the complaint to a less
stringent standard than one drafted by a lawyer. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011). Even under this lenient standard, the complaint must be dismissed for reasons
set forth below, but the court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
OPINION
Plaintiff alleges that, on “February 10th,” he received mail from the “department of
Justice” in response to a complaint in an unspecified case in which plaintiff was the victim.
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff claims that the mail was opened and copied. When plaintiff complained to defendant
Jim Zimmerman, he was accused of trying to have “K2” sent into the jail. A week later,
defendant Jason Meister opened a letter sent to plaintiff from a “Victim Specialist” with DOJ.
On February 20, defendant Jorge Pacheco opened an envelope from the “District Court”
containing legal forms. Plaintiff filed a grievance, complaining that opening his “legal mail”
violated his right to privacy, but was told that the letters were opened by mistake and that
“everyone is human.” In another incident, defendant Jody Wilheim made light of plaintiff
being a victim of felony battery to an inmate at the Lincoln County Jail.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a claim for relief must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
court understands plaintiff to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires him to show
that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United
States, and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law.
D.S. v. E. Porter Cnty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v.
Cnty. of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)).
To begin, plaintiff does not state a claim against Tara Howard, who is named as a
defendant, because he does not allege facts showing that she was involved in any way with a
constitutional violation. Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833-34 (7th Cir. 2010) (individual
liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement, so plaintiff must allege sufficient facts
showing that individual personally caused or participated in constitutional deprivation). In
addition, it is true that prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, though
that right can be limited by restrictions that are “reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.” Van den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Turner v.
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Thus, courts have held that officials may open and examine
an inmate’s mail to ensure that it does not contain contraband. Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419
F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2005). “Legal mail,” such as correspondence between an inmate and
his attorney, is entitled to greater protections because of the potential for interfering with an
inmate’s right of access to the courts. See Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 802 (7th
Cir. 2010). Plaintiff does not allege that the envelopes were labeled “privileged” or “legal mail”
or that his communications involved confidential matters protected by attorney-client
privilege. Id. at 804 (“Prison officials cannot be certain, just from the return address on an
envelope, that a letter is [for] a lawyer . . .[i]f prison officials had to check in each case whether
a communication was [for] an attorney before opening it for inspection, a near impossible task
of administration would be imposed.”). As a result, plaintiff has not stated a claim for
interference with his mail. Further, while plaintiff complains that defendant Wilhelm made
fun of him, allegations of mere verbal abuse are insufficient grounds for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Daniels v. Southfort, 6 F.3d 482, 484 (7th Cir. 1993); Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d
697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987).
The Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing a self-represented plaintiff’s case
without giving the plaintiff a chance to amend. Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636
(7th Cir. 2016). The court will grant plaintiff a 30-day window to file an amended complaint,
preferably on one of the court’s approved forms for prisoners filing civil actions or similar form
available from the prison law library. To comply with Rule 8, plaintiff must 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. Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint will be screened under
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and that any failure to respond will result in the dismissal of this
action without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Ezekiel J. Glick is DENIED leave to proceed, and his complaint (dkt. #1)
is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to meet the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2) The clerk’s office is directed to provide plaintiff with a prisoner packet containing a
civil rights complaint form.
3) Plaintiff has until March 6, 2026 to file an amended complaint that satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff’s failure to file an
amended complaint by that deadline will result in the court dismissing this action
with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).
Entered the 4th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00228-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4