United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
TYRONE D. ARDS, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY CASIANA, MIKE MORRISON, THEODORE ANDERSON, DAN NORGE, RAYMOND WOODS, RANDY SCHNEIDER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THOMPSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STELLICK, LUCAS WEBER, DAVID MELBY, JANE/JOHN DOE NURSE 1-3, and JOE REDA Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON District Judge.
prisoner Tyrone Ards is in the custody of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections (DOC), incarcerated at the Columbia
Correctional Institution (CCI). Plaintiff has filed a
proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
prison officials violated his constitutional rights by
depriving him of basic necessities, failing to adequately
respond to his threats of suicide, and using excessive force
against him. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for
assistance recruiting counsel. Dkt. 4.
has made an initial partial payment of his filing fee, as
directed by the court. The next step in this case is for me
to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or asks for monetary
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money
damages. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. In screening any
pro se litigant’s complaint, I must read the
allegations of the complaint generously. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). After
reviewing the complaint with this principle in mind, I
conclude that plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because he has not provided a short
and plain statement of his claims against defendants. I also
note that plaintiff appears to be bringing unrelated claims
against unrelated defendants, which would violate Rules 18
and 20. I will therefore dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
and give him an opportunity to amend it. I will also deny
plaintiff’s motion for assistance recruiting counsel.
is currently incarcerated at CCI, which is located in
Portage, Wisconsin. Defendants are DOC employees who worked
at CCI during the relevant events of this case.
February 2014, CCI staff placed plaintiff in clinical
observation because he felt that he might harm himself.
According to plaintiff, inmates on observation status did not
have basic necessities. These inmates were:
• Denied showers, toothpaste and toothbrushes, combs,
lotion, shampoo, and other basic hygiene products;
• Denied opportunities to floss, clip their toenails,
and wear shoes or underwear;
• Denied opportunities to clean their cells, sweep or
mop their floors, and disinfect their sinks;
• Forced to eat meals such as cereal and noodles without
• Given only four to eight pieces of toilet paper; and
• Denied opportunities to read magazines, send letters,
and acquire forms.
Raymond Woods, Dan Norge, Lucas Weber, David Melby, and Mike
Morrison were aware of these conditions (plaintiff does not
explain how) and could have addressed them. For example,
Woods and Norge-both psychologists at CCI-could have
authorized inmates on observation status to receive each of
the items or opportunities listed above. Likewise, Weber,
Melby, and Morrison-the security director at CCI, a unit
manager at CCI, and a security supervisor at CCI-could have
ordered that inmates on observation status receive showers
and cell cleaning supplies.
being in observation for three weeks, plaintiff stopped
eating and drinking. He lost about “10% of his
BMI.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 33. Woods, Norge, and another
doctor at CCI,  as well as defendants John/Jane Doe Nurses
1-3, were aware of plaintiff’s attempt to kill himself
by not eating (again, plaintiff does not explain how they
were aware of this). But these defendants did not try to stop