Buy This Entire Record For
Wright v. Sauk County Sheriff Dept. of Corrections
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
May 27, 2016
JASON LEE WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
SAUK COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, SAUK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, SAUK COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS UNIT #811 PAROLE AND PROBATION, NICKY DOBBS, REEDSBURG POLICE DEPT., DAVID ANDERSON, SRGT LAATSCH, SRGT SCHLOUGH, SRGT WILSON, SRGT GOLDEN, SRGT HAMER, DEPUTY PAPARA, SCHULTZ, M. SPOKE COOK, C. KELLER #9318, KOLIKOWSKI #9312, MACASKILL #9376, KEVIN STAUM #9319, BENESH #9362 VAN DEN HEUVEL, STEVE #9345, D. BERGMAN, W. NEUBAUER, BECKY BENNETT, GIESE, ROCKWIELER, T. COOK BRYCE TRAGGER #9355, C. FISK #9381, T. HOLLOWAY, T. GRUBER, D. WEINBERGER #9384, M. COOK #9383 CARROLL #9325, SAUK COUNTY JAIL NURSE, SAUK COUNTY DETECTIVE OF THE JAIL CORRUPT, SHANNON, Secretary receptionist, Sauk County Public Defender’s office, DEBRA V. O’ROURKE, RANDALL HOLTZ, MARK D. LAWTON, GOMZ MARK #1032914, KATHY LAATSCH, CFS Supervisor, JENNIFER SOKOW, ANNA SHERMAN #8407 SRGT M. EBERLE, Reedsburg Police Dept. #137 OFFICER W. BOTTEN #140, BARABOO POLICE DEPT., OFFICER PICKLER, VICKIE MEISTER, Sauk County Clerk of Court, DEBBIE WESTERWELLE, GUY REYNOLDS, Branch #3, DETECTIVE LUSKI, MARK FRANK #1019391, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE VICTIMS WITNESS UNIT, SUE MOELLUER, SVD BUILDING JEROME, TONYA SHELDON, DEPT. MANAGER RICHARD, HR JESSICA, KELLY, MAIN BUILDING, ETHAN, KERRY, LINDA, ONEAL, BOB MARSHALL, Dept. Manager, SEATS, INC. SVD BUILDING, SEATS, INC. MAIN BUILDING, GREGORY AND LAVONNE SCHMIDT, BRANDON PARKER, CHRISTINE ESPINOZA, Y MUNDITH, CAROLYN LEIGH, TONYA BRONDT, KATHY L. KNIGHT, MELISSA PARKS, ROBERTA WILSON, MICHELLE, GARY NELSON, JR., ASHLEY CARRIG, ALEX KROLILKOWSKI, TOW TRUCK COMPANY, STEVES AUTO, T. KNUTH and J. SPEERS, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge
prisoner Jason Lee Wright has filed a proposed complaint and
a request to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. In a previous order, Magistrate Judge
Stephen Crocker determined that plaintiff has no means to
make an initial partial payment of the filing fee, so the
complaint is ready for screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.
cannot allow plaintiff to proceed on any claims at this time
because much of the complaint is illegible or unintelligble,
which means it does not comply with the requirement in
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 8 to provide fair notice of his
claims. Plaintiff has handwritten his complaint, cramming
large amounts of text into a small space, making it almost
impossible read. The text that is legible is difficult to
understand. Plaintiff has written the complaint in a
stream-of-consciousness style, with little context or
explanation for his vague allegations. Most of the nearly 100
defendants listed in the caption are not mentioned in the
body of the complaint.
complaint has so many problems, it is difficult to provide
specific guidance to him regarding how to fix it. However, in
the event that plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint, here are some things that plaintiff should
plaintiff should treat the complaint as if he were telling a
story to people who nothing about his situation. In
particular, he should follow the instructions in the
complaint form, which tell him to explain what each
defendant did to violate his rights, when they did it, where
it happened and why they did it, if plaintiff knows. In other
words, plaintiff should provide the details and context
necessary for a person reviewing the complain to understand
exactly why plaintiff believes that each defendant violated
if plaintiff does not have access to a printer or typewriter,
plaintiff is free to handwrite the complaint, but he should
take care to write clearly and legibly. In particular, he
should print the complaint rather than write in cursive and
he should limit himself to one line of text for each line on
the page. If this does not provide enough space, he is free
to attach additional pages.
plaintiff should be aware that he cannot challenge the
validity of his incarceration in the context of this lawsuit.
If he wants to do that, he must file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he
exhausts his remedies in state court. Therefore, if plaintiff
decides to file an amended complaint, he should omit
allegations regarding the validity of his confinement.
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, plaintiff cannot
sue different defendants for unrelated conduct. Although it
is difficult to tell from plaintiff’s allegations how
he believes that each of the defendants violated his rights,
the general topics discussed in the complaint seems to vary
significantly, including alleged harassment by police
officers and alleged mail interference by staff at the jail
where plaintiff is confined. These different issues do not
belong in the same lawsuit. If plaintiff files an amended
complaint and he includes more than one defendant, he should
focus on one set of events. If he wants to sue about multiple
unrelated events, he will have to file multiple lawsuits.
IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff Jason Lee Wright’s complaint is DISMISSED for
his failure to provide fair notice of his claims.
Plaintiff may have until June 14, 2016, to file an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
plaintiff does not respond by June 14, 2016, I will dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and assess a ...