Prisoner PTSD Intercom Feedback Claim Allowed to Proceed

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

PAUL ALOIS ADAMSKI v. DAISY CHASE, TONYA MOON, CARA LENZ, NATHAN BEIER, and JOHN DOE MAINTENANCE DEFENDANTS 1–100

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-00296

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.3K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PAUL ALOIS ADAMSKI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 26-C-296

DAISY CHASE, TONYA MOON,
CARA LENZ, NATHAN BEIER, and
JOHN DOE MAINTENANCE DEFENDANTS 1–100,

Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Paul Alois Adamski, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Redgranite
Correctional Institution 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 Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint.
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of 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). Plaintiff has filed a certified copy
of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of
his complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2), and has been assessed and paid an initial
partial filing fee of $75.56. Plaintiff’s 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 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, I
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, 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
At all times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff was housed at Redgranite Correctional

Institution. Plaintiff is a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Compl. at 3,
Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff asserts that, when officers make announcements over the “all call” system, a
“sudden, loud, painful burst of feedback” plays across the intercom system. Id. at 4. He contends
that the feedback bursts make it difficult to understand what the officers are announcing and
triggers Plaintiff’s startle response, one of his PTSD symptoms. Id. In 2024, Plaintiff obtained
two hearing aids through the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Id. He asserts that because
the feedback is too loud and disturbing for him, he no longer uses his hearing aids. Id.
Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance, complaining that the feedback caused him pain when
he used his hearing aids and that he could no longer use them. Defendant Inmate Complaint
Examiner Tonia Moon responded that the feedback lasts for “a couple of seconds at a time.” Id.

Although Moon stated that the issue was being looked into by maintenance, Plaintiff alleges that
she did nothing further to ensure compliance. Id. Defendant Warden Daisy Chase affirmed the
complaint on October 1, 2024, and has allowed the feedback to persist and become worse. Id.
Plaintiff spoke to Defendant ADA Coordinator Cara Lenz about the issue. Id. at 5. Lenz assured
Plaintiff that she would look into the issue but took no action to ensure compliance with ADA
regulations. Id.
Plaintiff noticed for a short time that there was some minor decrease in the feedback after
staff had been instructed about the placement of speakers in the units in relation to the location of
the microphone used for announcements, but feedback bursts continue to occur. Id. Plaintiff
contacted Defendant G Unit Manager Nathan Beier when the feedback persisted and informed him
that there were still issues. Beier stated that he contacted Defendants John Doe Maintenance
Workers. Plaintiff asserts that Beier refused to ensure that the environment was safe for the use of
hearing aids and persons suffering with mental health issues, such as Plaintiff. Id.

In November 2025, the John Doe Maintenance Workers made a change to the “all call”
system which made the feedback “profoundly worse.” Id. Plaintiff has attempted to get Lenz to
advocate for him from an ADA perspective, but she has refused to ensure compliance with such
standards by the other defendants. Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Redgranite Correctional Institution has created a policy, practice, or
custom in which inmates may be charged with an offense if they fail to use their hearing aids. He
alleges that Defendants have allowed this new policy and that the policy places Plaintiff in
imminent danger of being harmed. Id.
THE COURT’S ANALYSIS
“To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he or she

was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and that this
deprivation occurred at the hands of a person or persons acting under the color of state law.” D.S.
v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. Cty. of
Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. To state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must
allege facts that, if proven, would satisfy two requirements: first, the alleged deprivation of rights
must be sufficiently serious; second, the prison official must have acted with a “sufficiently
culpable state a mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–34 (1994). The Supreme Court
has defined cruel and unusual punishment as “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Pain can include severe mental distress. Beal v.
Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015) (“In short, ‘the alleged pain [sufficient to constitute
cruel punishment] may be physical or psychological.’” (quoting Watison v. Carter, [668 F.3d 1108,

1112](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/622731/raymond-watison-v-mary-carter/#1112) (9th Cir. 2012))).
What is necessary to establish an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, the Court has
held, “varies according to the nature of the alleged constitutional violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). Where the alleged violation arises out of a failure to act, as for example, the
failure of prison officials to provide essential medical care, the question is whether the officials
exhibited “deliberate indifference.” Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). But
where the alleged violation arises out of deliberate actions of prison officials, the question is
whether the actions taken constitute the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. at 7
(citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319).
Although “[s]ubjecting a prisoner to a few hours of periodic loud noises that merely annoy,

rather than injure the prisoner does not demonstrate a disregard for the prisoner’s welfare,” see
Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir. 1994), when actions are repeated over time, they
may increase the plaintiff’s risk of physical or psychological harm. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81
F.3d 1422, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s allegation of loud noise that “occurred every night,
often all night” for months stated claim under Eighth Amendment). This is especially true where
the inmate suffers from a mental illness or disorder such as PTSD. Based on the allegations
contained in the complaint, Plaintiff may proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim against Warden Chase, Moon, Lenz, Beier, and John Doe Maintenance
Defendants 1–100.
Plaintiff also asserts a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To state a
claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability;
(2) a public entity denied him the benefits of its services, programs, or activities or otherwise
discriminated against him; and (3) the denial or discrimination occurred because of his disability.

Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Plaintiff asserts that
because the feedback is too loud and disturbing for him, he no longer uses his hearing aids. He
alleges that Defendants discriminated against him by denying him the use of his hearing aids or,
alternatively, forced him to use them in a way that would harm him and by depriving him of a safe
environment that would accommodate his disability. Plaintiff may proceed on an ADA claim
against Warden Chase in her official capacity. See Jaros v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 684 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that individual capacity claims are not available under the ADA and that
the proper defendant is the agency or its director (in her official capacity)); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 12131 (1)(b).
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Redgranite Correctional Institution has created a policy in

which inmates may be charged with an offense if they fail to use their hearing aids. Plaintiff has
not alleged that he has been charged with an offense, but he alleges that the policy places him “in
imminent danger of being harmed.” Compl. at 5. Being exposed to a mere risk of harm, without
incurring harm, is not enough to maintain a claim. See Lord v. Beahm, 952 F.3d 902, 905 (7th Cir.
2020) (“risk is not compensable without evidence of injury”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to an informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of Plaintiff’s complaint and this order
are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on the state
defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, the defendants shall file a responsive pleading

to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of the prisoner shall collect
from his institution trust account the $273.44 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
payments from Plaintiff’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
Plaintiff is transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this
order along with Plaintiff’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 the inmate is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may not begin discovery until after the
court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.
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:
Honorable William C. Griesbach
c/o Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102
Green Bay, WI 54301
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will
only delay the processing of the matter.
Plaintiff 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. Therefore, failure to provide your correct address could result in dismissal of
your case for failure to prosecute.
Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 16th day of April, 2026. A
Gls Finale’
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge