Schultz, Nigel v. Rohwer, Dustin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NIGEL ROBERT SCHULTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUSTIN ROHWER,
OFFICER ASH,
REGISTERED NURSES,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
25-cv-717-wmc
Plaintiff Nigel Robert Schultz, a state prisoner who represents himself, has filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied medical care while at the
Columbia Correctional Institution (“CCI”). (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).
However, plaintiff must still provide facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Applying this
standard, the court must dismiss the complaint because it us insufficient to state a claim
for relief, but will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
Case: 3:25-cv-00717-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
OPINION
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.”
Each allegation must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The primary
purpose of Rule 8(a)(2) is to “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). This
standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but “naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement” are not enough. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Here, plaintiff alleges that he did not get “medical attention” for an unspecified
condition from “correctional officer sergeant rohwer[,] correctional officer ash[,] and every
registered nurse who worked throughout the entire day of August 16, 2025[.]” (Dkt. #1,
at 2.) To succeed on a claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, an inmate “must show ‘(1) an objectively serious medical condition
to which (2) a state official was deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent.’” Johnson v.
Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., 839 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2016)). A medical need is objectively serious if it “has
been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment” or “is so obvious that even a lay
person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Donald v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotations
omitted). A prison official acts with the requisite deliberate indifference only if the official
“actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d
722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
Case: 3:25-cv-00717-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
837 (1994)).
Plaintiff does not provide any details about his medical condition on August 16,
2025, and does not establish that it was objectively serious for purposes of an Eighth
Amendment claim. Likewise, he does not specify what treatment he requested or explain
why it was required. He also does not allege facts showing what harm, if any, he suffered
from being denied care. He further fails to identify each defendant and specify their
personal involvement in the alleged harm. This is insufficient to state a claim. Mitchell v.
Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2018); see also 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); Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657
(7th Cir. 2017) (“Individual liability under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 . . . requires personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.”); Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., Ill., 40
F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (Section 1983 lawsuits “require personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim.”).
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. 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. Plaintiff is further encouraged to identify each
Case: 3:25-cv-00717-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
defendant by their full name to the best of his ability. Plaintiff is advised that any amended
complaint will be screened under 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 Nigel Robert Schultz is DENIED leave to proceed, and his complaint
(dkt. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to meet the minimal
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-00717-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4