Grant, James v. Lamarca, Michael et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES EDWARD GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MICHAEL A. LAMARCA, DR. THO HUYNH.
DR. A. DANOS, K. JOHNSON, MANAGER – SBCC,
DR. TOMMY URBANOWICZ, and
ASSISTANT DENTAL DIRECTOR WOLFE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-1004-jdp
Plaintiff James Edward Grant, proceeding without counsel, is incarcerated at John C.
Burke Correctional Center. He alleges that facility staff are refusing to treat a painful dental
condition.
Under the terms of sanctions issued by this court, Grant generally remains barred from
proceeding with new cases until he pays off the large debt he owes for filing fees for the cases
and appeals he previously filed. The only case-initiating documents that he may file are habeas
corpus petitions and complaints in which he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious
physical harm. See Grant v. Gill, No. 15-cv-420-jdp, 2016 WL 80676 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 7, 2016).
Grant’s allegations of staff’s failure to treat a painful medical condition potentially
meets the imminent-danger standard. But there are issues that Grant must address before this
case can move forward.
First, I take Grant to be seeking leave to proceed without prepaying the entire filing fee,
also known as “in forma pauperis” status, but he has not submitted his trust fund account
statement or any other information that this court would need to consider his finances and
Case: 3:26-cv-01004-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
assess him an initial partial payment of the filing fee as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
I will give Grant a deadline to submit a copy of his six-month trust fund account statement.
Second, Grant’s current allegations do not meet the court’s pleading standards. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Under Rule 8(d), “each allegation must
be simple, concise, and direct.” The primary purpose of these rules is fair notice. Because claims
like these brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be based on a defendant’s personal
involvement in constitutional violation, see Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir.
1995), each individual defendant whom Grant wishes to sue in this case must be able to
understand what they are alleged to have done to violate his rights. Grant doesn’t explain
enough about the dental condition he is suffering from to tell whether it meets § 1915(g)’s
imminent-danger standard, and he doesn’t explain what each defendant he names did or did
not do that harmed him.
I will dismiss Grant’s complaint and give him a chance to file an amended complaint
that meets these standards. In filing an amended complaint, Grant should be sure to explain
(1) more about the dental problems he has and the pain those conditions are causing him; and
(2) how each defendant was involved in denying him care.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff may have until November 3, 2026, to submit a certified trust fund account
statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
2. 	The complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
Case: 3:26-cv-01004-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Plaintiff may have until November 3, 2026, to submit an amended complaint.
Entered October 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-01004-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3