Primer, Kelvin v. Kelly, Dakota et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KELVIN D. PRIMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA GUNNUFSON, DAKOTA KELLEY, WILLIAM
GARCIA, JINNIFER, and TAYLOR,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-69-jdp
Plaintiff Kelvin D. Primer, proceeding without counsel, is a prisoner at Stanley
Correctional Institution. Primer alleges that when he was at the Rock County Jail, staff failed
to adequately treat a severe infection that developed in his arm. He has made an initial partial
payment of the filing fee as directed by the court.
The next step is for me to screen Primer’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is
legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 and 1915A. In doing so, I must accept his 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, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). I conclude that Primer’s
complaint fails to properly state any claims for relief, but I will give him a chance to file an
amended complaint.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Primer was booked into the Rock County Jail in late March 2023. Soon after he
complained to medical staff about a painful bump under his right arm. They gave him
Case: 3:26-cv-00069-jdp Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ibuprofen. The bump grew larger but staff told him that there was nothing else that they could
do. Primer began to suffer severe pain. Primer’s wife called the jail about the problem, leading
him to be seen again by heath staff, who said that they might need to have a specialist look at
it, but there’s no indication that they did so. A nurse started him on an antibiotic that didn’t
seem to help. A couple of weeks later, the bump grew to the size of a golf ball and Primer
couldn’t put his arm down. Staff started him on a different antibiotic, which didn’t help him
either.
Eventually, Primer was transferred to state of Wisconsin custody (from online court
and DOC records it appears that Primer was convicted in May 2023). DOC staff immediately
sent him to have emergency surgery on what was diagnosed as an infection.
ANALYSIS
Primer names several jail officials as defendants and contends that they violated his
constitutional rights by failing to adequately treat his infection. Because Primer’s allegations
appear to show that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of his alleged mistreatment, I will
assume that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to his claims. To state a Fourteenth
Amendment claim based 	on 	denial 	of 	medical 	care, 	Primer must 	plausibly 	allege that:
(1) defendants engaged in intentional conduct or made an intentional decision about his
medical care; and (2) defendants’ conduct or decision was objectively unreasonable in 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).
Primer’s 	allegations 	that 	medical 	staff 	persisted 	in 	treating 	his 	condition 	with
interventions that didn’t work are enough to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Case: 3:26-cv-00069-jdp Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The problem for Primer is that he doesn’t explain how each of the named defendants were
actually involved in making the medical decisions that harmed him. In the body of his
complaint he doesn’t mention any of the defendants by name. So his complaint doesn’t
properly state any claims for relief.
I will dismiss Primer’s current complaint, but I will give him a short time to file an
amended complaint better explaining his claims. In doing so, Primer should take care to do the
following:
• 	Carefully consider whether he is naming proper defendants and omit defendants
who did not participate in a violation of his rights.
• 	Describe simply and concisely what actions he believes that each defendant took
that violated his rights, using separate, numbered paragraphs.
If Primer doesn’t submit an amended complaint by the deadline set below, I will dismiss
the entire case and direct the direct the clerk of court to record a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
2. 	Plaintiff may have until April 20, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
Entered March 31, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00069-jdp Document #: 8 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3