Gohre, Demetrius v. Van Natta et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEMETRIUS GOHRE,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER VAN NATTA, MICHAEL DOTSON,
DYLAN HOFFSTATTER, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE
#2, SGT. LUKAS ROBERTSON, LT. LATURIS,
ETHAN MARCZESKI, and HSU MANAGER ACKER,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-273-jdp
Plaintiff Demetrius Gohre is now incarcerated at Stanley Correctional Institution.
Gohre alleges that when he was housed at Columbia Correctional Institution, staff violated his
federal rights in various ways, including by disregarding the risk that he would attempt suicide.
On initial screening of the complaint, I did not screen any of his claims on the merits
because his complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 by bringing several claims
based on separate events against mostly different defendants. But I allowed Gohre to choose
which of his claims he wished to proceed on in this case and to inform the court whether he
wished to open new cases to pursue his other unrelated claims.
Gohre has notified the court that, in this case, he wishes to pursue his Eighth
Amendment claim based on conscious disregard of safety against defendant Officer Van Natta.
Dkt. 8. Now, having screened that claim on the merits, I will not allow Gohre to proceed on
that claim because he has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. But I will allow Gohre to
amend the complaint to fix the problems identified in this order. I will dismiss Gohre’s other
claims for improper joinder for the reasons in my initial screening order and remove the other
defendants from the case.
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4

2
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
On July 6, 2023, while incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution, Gohre was
experiencing severe migraine headaches. Correctional officer Van Natta repeatedly denied
Gohre pain medication for that problem. Gohre then repeatedly told Van Natta that he was
suicidal and needed psychological services. Van Natta ignored Gohre, told him that he couldn’t
help him, and walked away. Gohre then attempted suicide by hanging himself from his bunk.
Staff eventually noticed Gohre and performed a cell extraction. Gohre was then placed on
clinical observation.
ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from consciously disregarding an
excessive risk to prisoner safety, including serious acts of self-harm. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Lisle v. Welborn, 933 F.3d 705, 716 (7th Cir. 2019). To state a
claim based on conscious disregard of safety, Gohre must plausibly allege that (1) he faced an
objectively serious risk of harm that (2) Van Natta consciously disregarded. See Collins v.
Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2006). I will assume for purposes of this opinion that the
risk that Gohre would attempt suicide was objectively serious. The issue is whether Gohre has
plausibly alleged that Van Natta consciously disregarded that risk.
Conscious disregard involves intentional or reckless conduct, not mere negligence. Berry
v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). Gohre must allege that Van Natta “actually
knew of, but disregarded, a substantial risk to [his] health.” See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714,
721 (7th Cir. 2017). Van Natta must have known of facts from which he could infer a
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4

3
substantial risk that Gohre would attempt suicide, and Van Natta also must have drawn that
inference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Gohre alleges that Van Natta repeatedly denied him pain medication, after which Gohre
repeatedly told Van Natta that he was suicidal and needed psychological services. Gohre adds
that Van Natta ignored that request, prompting Gohre to hang himself from the bunk. The
allegation that Gohre told Van Natta that he was suicidal and needed psychological services,
by itself, doesn’t plausibly suggest that Van Natta thought that Gohre would try to harm
himself, let alone attempt suicide. “As this and other courts have acknowledged, prisoners
sometimes use threats of self-harm to manipulate prison staff.” Fritsch v. Ries, No. 23-cv-803-
jdp, 2025 WL 1697182, at *4 (W.D. Wis. June 16, 2025). Without more facts indicating that
Gohre was at risk of self-harm, Van Natta had reason to doubt Gohre’s threat. Gohre also
alleges that Van Natta denied his requests for pain medication. But, even if Van Natta thought
that Gohre was in pain, it’s implausible that Van Natta realized that Gohre would try to harm
himself. A serious act of self-harm is not the type of reaction that would be expected from a
person merely complaining about pain. I will not allow Gohre to proceed on this claim.
In Gohre’s notice to the court, he asks for clarification about “whether or not there is a
time limit outside of the three year statute for him to pursue” the improperly joined claims.
Dkt. 8 at 1. I will clarify that the improperly joined claims are subject to the three-year statute
of limitations. Now that those claims have been dismissed, the clock is running.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED, with the results that: (1) plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claim based on conscious disregard of safety against defendant
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Officer Van Natta is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim; and
(2) plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed without prejudice for improper joinder.
2. 	Plaintiff may have until January 21, 2026, to submit an amended complaint that
fixes the problems with his Eighth Amendment claim based on conscious disregard
of safety against Van Natta.
3. 	Plaintiff must file his amended complaint on the court’s prisoner complaint form,
which the court will send him with this order. Plaintiff must fill out the form
completely. If plaintiff requires any additional space to allege his claims, he may
submit no more than five supplemental pages. Any text on the form or a
supplemental page must be large enough and have enough spacing between lines
and in the margins for the court to read it easily.
4. 	The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the complaint. This
case will proceed on only the allegations made, and the Eighth Amendment claim
based on conscious disregard of safety presented in, the amended complaint, and
against only defendants specifically named in the amended complaint’s caption.
5. 	If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, I may dismiss this case.
6. 	Dotson, Hoffstatter, John Does #1–2, Robertson, Laturis, Marczeski, and Acker are
to be removed from the case.
7. 	Plaintiff must inform the court of any new address. If he fails to do this and
defendant or the court cannot locate him, this case may be dismissed.
8. 	Plaintiff should keep a copy of all documents for his own files. If he is unable to use
a photocopy machine, he may send out identical handwritten or typed copies of his
documents.
9. 	The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s prisoner
complaint form.
Entered December 22, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4