United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
CLYDE R. MCCOLLUM, JR., Plaintiff,
BRYAN L. HEARRON, SANDY L. SCHULTZ, STATE OF WISCONSIN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY OF WAUSAU POLICE DEPT., AND OSHKOSH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
D. Peterson District Judge
plaintiff Clyde R. McCollum, Jr., filed a proposed complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various
constitutional violations, including challenges to his
treatment at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Dkt. 1. In
an April 21, 2016 order, I reviewed his complaint and
concluded that it did not meet the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Dkt. 25. I offered
plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint and
include additional facts so that I could understand the
nature of his claims. Plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint, Dkt. 27, and I now understand that he is alleging
two kinds of claims. One kind involves his arrest, and the
other kind involves his treatment in prison. The two kinds of
claims are not related to each other. Accordingly, I cannot
conduct the required screening because plaintiff’s
complaint violates Rule 20.
the following facts from plaintiff’s amended complaint
and other court filings. Plaintiff was arrested and charged
with possession of child pornography. He alleges that his
arrest was unlawful and that, over the course of the criminal
proceedings against him, he suffered false imprisonment and
unconstitutional deprivations of his property. He alleges
that the child pornography found on his computer actually
belonged to his two former roommates, Bryan L. Hearron and
Sandy L. Schultz, who were also convicted of similar crimes,
and he blames them for the arrest, imprisonment, and
deprivations. Plaintiff alleges that Detective Hansen of the
Wausau Police department conducted the unlawful arrest and
took his computer without a warrant. He also alleges that
district attorney Theresa Wetzsteon maliciously prosecuted
him knowing that he was innocent of the charges.
is manic-depressive and alleges that Nurse Bowins, Dr.
Scolknick, and Dr. Patrick, prison staff members at the
Oshkosh Correctional Institution, are depriving him of mental
health treatment. He also alleges that he is being deprived
of medication for his back pain, knee pain, and gout.
Plaintiff contends that the food he is being served makes him
ill and that he is unable to eat it.
the two kinds of claims that plaintiff alleges are not
related to each other, they do not belong in the same lawsuit
together. But plaintiff may split his claims into two
lawsuits and proceed under only one of those lawsuits in this
case. Under Rule 20, multiple claims against multiple
defendants may be joined in one lawsuit only if they arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence and present
questions of law or fact that are common to them all.
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
taking any position on the relative merit of either option,
plaintiff must choose to pursue either of the following
possible separate lawsuits:
Lawsuit 1: A Fourth Amendment claim and a Fourteenth
Amendment due process claim against Detective Hansen and
district attorney Theresa Wetzsteon for an illegal search,
false arrest, and malicious prosecution; or
Lawsuit 2: An Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Nurse Bowins, Dr. Scolknick, and Dr. Patrick for
failing to adequately accommodate plaintiff’s medical
I can screen the merits of any of his claims, plaintiff will
have to respond to this order and explain how he would like
to proceed. He must choose one of the two lawsuits above to
pursue using this case number.
may also choose to pursue the other lawsuit, but he will be
required to pay another $350 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). He may also be subjected to a separate strike
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for each lawsuit that he
pursues if it is later dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Once plaintiff receives
three strikes, he may not proceed in new lawsuits without
first paying the full filing fee, except in very narrow
circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
plaintiff may choose to dismiss the lawsuit that he does not
pursue under this case number. If he chooses this option,
plaintiff will not owe an additional filing fee or face a
strike for the lawsuit that he dismisses. The dismissal would
also be without prejudice, so plaintiff would be able to file
that lawsuit another time, provided that he files it before
the statute of limitations has run.
plaintiff has chosen which lawsuit to pursue under this case
number, I will screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Whichever lawsuit he chooses, plaintiff will likely
not be able to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
his former roommates Hearron and Schultz. He has not alleged
facts showing that violated any of his federal or
constitutional rights, they are not state officials, ...