Andrew R. Beltran v. Nurse Courtney Williams, Southern Health Partners, and Waushara County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ANDREW R. BELTRAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-cv-1498-bhl NURSE COURTNEY WILLIAMS, SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, and WAUSHARA COUNTY JAIL, Defendants. SCREENING ORDER Plaintiff Andrew Beltran, who is currently confined at the Waushara County Jail and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 , alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes before the Court on Beltran’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint. MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE Beltran has requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (in forma pauperis). A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See 28 U.S.C. §1915 (b)(1). As required under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (a)(2), Beltran has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Based on a review of this statement, the Court finds that Beltran lacks the assets and means to pay an initial partial filing fee, so his obligation to do so will be waived and his motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee will be granted. SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT The Court has a duty to review any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity and must dismiss any complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised any claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). In screening a complaint, the Court must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. “The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 556 . “[T]he complaint’s allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555 (internal quotations omitted). ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT According to Beltran, on September 15, 2025, Defendant Nurse Courtney Williams was handing out medication when she informed Beltran that his prescription had been canceled and he had been prescribed a different medication. Beltran asserts that he was surprised because he had not discussed the change with his provider. He states that he asked Williams why she was discussing his medical matters with him in front of other inmates. He also states that two days later he decided he did not want to take the substituted medication. He states that at the evening medication pass he almost took the medication on accident. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS Beltran fails to state a claim based on allegations that Nurse Williams discussed his medical concerns with him in front of other inmates because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not furnish a private right of action. See Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing cases). Therefore, a violation of HIPAA does not state a cognizable claim under §1983. Id. Beltran also fails to state a claim against Nurse Williams based on allegations that his provider changed his prescription without first discussing the change with him. Section 1983 requires that an individual be personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). Nurse Williams is not liable for decisions made by Beltran’s provider, even if the decision was incorrect. And, in any event, Beltran is not entitled to demand specific care; he is entitled only to reasonable care. See, e.g., Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262 , 267 (7th Cir. 1997). The mere fact that Beltran prefers a different medication is insufficient on its own to state a claim. Beltran therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Seventh Circuit has explained that the norm is to afford a plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend his complaint. See Zimmerman v. Bornick, 25 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, if Beltran believes he can cure the deficiencies identified in this decision, he may file an amended complaint by February 5, 2026. He is advised that an amended complaint will replace the original complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054 , 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1998). If an amended complaint is received by the deadline, the Court will screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. If an amended complaint is not received, the Court will dismiss this action based on Beltran’s failure to state a claim in his original complaint. If Beltran does not believe he can cure the deficiencies identified in this decision, he does not have to do anything further. The Court will enclose an amended complaint form along with this decision. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Beltran’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 5, 2026, Beltran may file an amended complaint if he believes he can cure the defects in the original complaint as described in this decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail Beltran a blank prisoner amended complaint form and a copy of the guide entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common Questions,” along with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Beltran shall collect from his institution trust account the $350 filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Beltran’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915 (b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this action. If Beltran is transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this Order along with Beltran’s remaining balance to the receiving institution. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of the agency where Beltran is located. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all inmates of Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution, and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities must submit the original document for each filing to the Court to the following address: Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin 362 United States Courthouse 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the matter. Beltran is further advised that failure to make a timely submission may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on January 7, 2026. s/ Brett H. Ludwig BRETT H. LUDWIG United States District Judge