Chase, Maggie v. Monroe County Human Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MAGGIE CHASE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONROE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES and
VIVITROL INJECTION TEAM,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-356-jdp
Plaintiff 	Maggie 	Chase, 	proceeding 	without 	counsel, 	attended 	her 	scheduled
appointment with defendant Monroe County Human Services to receive an injection of
VIVITROL. 1 Chase alleges that defendant VIVITROL Injection Team failed to conduct a
urinary analysis before injecting Chase with the drug, which was contrary to Monroe County
Human Services’s policy.2 Chase alleges that the Team’s failure to conduct a urinary analysis
caused her to go to the Monroe County emergency room, where she was intubated and placed
in a medically-induced coma.
Chase’s complaint is before the court for screening. I must dismiss any portion of her
complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). I must accept the factual allegations in her complaint as true and
1 I take judicial notice that VIVITROL is the brand name of naltrexone, a drug used to treat
opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder.
2 I understand the VIVITROL Injection Team to be comprised of county employees responsible
for injecting individuals with VIVITROL.
Case: 3:25-cv-00356-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4

2
interpret her complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
ANALYSIS
Chase does not specify the type of claim she is bringing, but pro se plaintiffs are not
required to plead particular legal theories. Small v. Chao, 398 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 2005). I
will consider Chase’s allegations as an inadequate medical care claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment, a legal theory that might fit the facts.3 To state an inadequate medical care claim,
plaintiffs must allege facts showing that: (1) defendants acted intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly when they considered the consequences of their actions; and (2) defendants’ actions
were objectively unreasonable. See McCann v. Ogle Cnty., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018).
Chase’s complaint does not allege facts showing that the Team acted with the requisite
mental state. Chase alleges that a counselor, Amy Schoenoff, gave a nurse, Lindsey Goyette,
permission to inject Chase with VIVITROL. See Dkt. 1, at 2–3. Then, Goyette injected Chase
with the drug without first conducting a urinary analysis. See id. As it stands, Chase’s complaint
demonstrates that, at most, the Team was negligent. But negligence is insufficient to support
a claim for inadequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. See McCann, 909 F.3d
at 887.
3 If Chase intended to argue that the Team violated her constitutional rights by failing to follow
Monroe County Human Services’s policy, she would fail to state a claim for relief because
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not protect plaintiffs from violations of departmental policies. See Scott
v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003).
Case: 3:25-cv-00356-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4

3
I will give Chase a chance to amend her complaint to state a federal medical care claim.
In her amended complaint, Chase should name Schoenoff and Goyette as defendants rather
than identifying the Team as a defendant.
Chase attempts to sue Monroe County Human Services, but for Monroe County
Human Services to be held liable, its policy or custom must have violated Chase’s constitutional
rights. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Chase
alleges that her constitutional rights were violated because the Team failed to follow county
policy, so Chase cannot establish a claim under a Monell theory of liability. Monroe County
Human Services is not liable for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. See id. at 691.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Maggie Chase’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. 	Chase may have until January 16, 2026, to submit an amended complaint that fixes
the problems identified in this order.
3. 	Chase must file her amended complaint on the court’s non-prisoner complaint form,
which the court will send her with this order.
4. 	The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the complaint. This
case will proceed on only the allegations made and claims presented in the amended
complaint, and against only the defendants specifically named in the amended
complaint’s caption.
5. 	If Chase fails to comply with this order, I may dismiss the case.
6. 	Chase must inform the court of any new address. If she fails to do this and
defendants or the court cannot locate her, this case may be dismissed.
Case: 3:25-cv-00356-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4

4
7. 	The clerk is directed to send Chase copies of this order and the court’s non-prisoner
complaint form.
Entered December 16, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00356-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4