United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON District Judge.
Terrance Grissom and Robert Kidd, prisoners in the custody of
the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, bring this lawsuit
against William Pollard, warden of the Waupun Correctional
Institution (WCI), alleging that he disregarded their
complaints about improper treatment of their mental and
physical health issues and other problems. But as I have
discussed previously, it is unclear whether either plaintiff
wants to continue with the case, and whether plaintiff Kidd
wishes to proceed in a joint lawsuit with plaintiff Grissom.
See Dkt. 10. Plaintiff Grissom has not responded to
this court’s orders, and plaintiff Kidd has provided
contradictory responses. I will address each
plaintiff’s status in turn below.
Grissom is a frequent litigator in this court (he has brought
over 60 cases here since 1990) who has “struck
out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and who
independently has been barred from filing new complaints in
this court unless his allegations show that he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See Grissom v.
Kuluike, No. 14-cv-590-jdp (W.D. Wis. Jan. 12, 2015). I
have already concluded that Grissom’s allegations that
defendant Pollard is ignoring his physical and mental health
problems suffices to meet the imminent danger standard.
See Dkt. 10, at 2. But I directed Grissom to submit
$0.03 as an initial partial payment of the filing fee for
this case, and he has failed to do so or otherwise respond to
this court’s orders in this case, even as he has moved
on to initiate a new case in this court. Grissom v.
Dittmann, 15-cv-705-jdp. This is part of a trend in
Grissom’s recent litigation, in which he files lawsuits
but then does nothing to prosecute them. See, e.g.,
Grissom v. Luduigson, No. 14-cv-758-jdp (W.D. Wis.)
(case dismissed after Grissom failed to submit initial
partial payment of filing fee); Grissom v.
Vandenlangenberg, No. 14-cv-490-jdp (W.D. Wis.) (same).
Because Grissom has once again failed to submit an initial
partial payment or otherwise respond, I will dismiss him from
Kidd responded to this court’s order asking him for his
prison trust fund account statement by submitting letters
suggesting, incorrectly, that he believes that he can obtain
a full waiver of the filing fee because he is disabled as a
result of military service, and suggesting that his signature
on the complaint was forged by plaintiff Grissom. I directed
Kidd to explain whether he would like to continue with this
lawsuit and to submit a trust fund account statement. Dkt.
10, at 3-4. Kidd has responded with a series of filings, some
making it is seem like he would like to continue with this
case and others asking for refund of his filing fee.
continues to be laboring under the assumption that he is not
required to pay any of the filing fee for this case because
he is a disabled veteran. But this is not the case. If he
chooses to continue with this case, he will ultimately have a
total of $350 withdrawn from his income to pay the filing
fee. Because it is unclear from plaintiff’s filings
whether he genuinely wants to pursue this lawsuit, I will
give him a final chance to explain what he would like to do.
He has two choices:
• He can choose to continue with this lawsuit. Funds
will continue to be withdrawn from his prison trust fund
account to pay for the lawsuit.
• He can choose to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, in
which case I will direct the clerk of court to return all
withdrawn funds to him.
give Kidd a short time to tell the court which one of these
options he chooses. All of Kidd’s pending motions will
be denied without prejudice. This includes a motion for
appointment of counsel, because it is not yet clear whether
Kidd wishes to pursue the case, and he does not need counsel
to help him make this choice.
Plaintiff Terrance Grissom is DISMISSED from the case. The
case will proceed with plaintiff ...