Johnson, Jaime v. Miramontes, Lisa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAIME JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
24-cv-897-wmc
LISA MIRAMONTES, and
ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jaime Johnson, who is representing herself, has filed a complaint claiming that
she was injured while in custody of the Oneida County Sheriff’s Department. (Dkt. #1.) More
specifically, she claims that Corrections Officer Lisa Miramontes was “negligent” during
transport because she failed to keep a firm grip on Johnson’s arm while transporting her around
the jail. Instead of holding onto her arm, as required by jail policy, Miramontes held the
restraint belt attached to Johnson’s waist. Miramontes told Johnson that is how she always
transports inmates. Unfortunately, on one occasion when transporting Johnson, Johnson
tripped and fell, and Miramontes’ hold on Johnson’s waist belt caused Johnson to fall headfirst
onto the floor, splitting her forehead open and requiring stitches. Johnson alleges that if
Miramontes had “practiced a little more care,” her injury would have been prevented.
Because Johnson is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the court must
screen her complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant who by
law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In screening, the court must accept
Johnson’s allegations as true and construe the complaint generously, holding it to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742,
Case: 3:24-cv-00897-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4

2
751 (7th Cir. 2011). However, plaintiff must still allege enough facts to show that she is
plausibly entitled to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007).
Here, Johnson states in her complaint that she is proceeding under federal law. Thus,
the court assumes she is seeking to proceed on a constitutional claim against Miramontes under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute that permits individuals to sue for violation of their constitutional
rights. Because it appears that Johnson was a pretrial detainee during the relevant time,
plaintiff’s rights were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Jail staff may violate the Fourteenth Amendment if they: (1) engage in
intentional conduct or make an intentional decision about the conditions of an inmate’s
confinement; and (2) the jail official’s conduct or decision was objectively unreasonable under
the circumstances. See Est. of Sillah by Carter v. City of Madison, No. 23-cv-96-jdp, 2024 WL
4650945, at *9 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 1, 2024).
Here, plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the first element of a Fourteenth Amendment claim,
as she alleges that defendant intentionally decided to transport her and other inmates by
holding onto the restraint belt, rather than plaintiff’s arm. However, plaintiff’s allegations do
not suggest that the decision was “objectively unreasonable” under the circumstances, as
required by the second element. Plaintiff alleges only that she was hurt when she fell and
Miramontes was unable to catch her because she was not holding onto her arm. Absent
additional facts, failing to hold onto plaintiff’s arm in violation of jail transport policy is, at
most, and as plaintiff appears to concede, “negligence.” But negligence is not sufficient to state
a claim under the constitution. McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Even
Case: 3:24-cv-00897-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4

3
gross negligence is insufficient to impose constitutional liability ….”) (citation omitted).1 Nor
is violation of jail policy necessarily a violation of the Constitution. See Scott v. Edinburg, 346
F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (“However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 protects plaintiffs from
constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or, in this case, departmental regulations
and police practices.”); Lewis v. Richards, 107 F.3d 549, 554 n.5 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[I]gnoring
internal prison procedures does not mean that a constitutional violation has occurred.”)
In sum, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
However, the Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing a pro se plaintiff's case without
giving the plaintiff a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632,
636 (7th Cir. 2016). So plaintiff may file an amended complaint if she believes she can state
a constitutional claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this complaint.
If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the court will screen the allegations to determine
whether they state a claim for relief. If she does not submit an amended complaint by the date
below, this case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Jaime Johnson is DENIED leave to proceed and her complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
2. Plaintiff has until April 27, 2026, to file an amended complaint that states a
federal claim for relief as discussed in this order. Plaintiff’s failure to file an
amended complaint by that deadline will result in the court dismissing this
1 Negligence claims arise under state law, so this federal court would not have jurisdiction over a
negligence claim brought by plaintiff against defendant unless she and defendant were citizens of
different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because plaintiff alleges that both she and defendant live in
Wisconsin, she may not pursue a negligence claim in this court. Plaintiff may be able to proceed
with a negligence claim in a state court.
Case: 3:24-cv-00897-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4

4
action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
Entered this 31st day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00897-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4