United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON District Judge.
James Rzeplinski is an inmate at the Jackson Correctional
Institution (JCI) who has hepatitis C. In this case,
plaintiff brought Eighth Amendment claims against various JCI
and high-level state officials regarding his removal from a
program to treat his hepatitis C, as well as their refusal to
reinstate him into that program or provide him with other
treatment. In a January 19, 2016, order, I screened
plaintiff's complaint and dismissed much of it for being
duplicative to another recent case he filed, in which I
concluded that he failed to exhaust his administrative
Most of plaintiff's allegations were considered in a
previous case, Rzeplinski v. Marsolek, 14-cv-41-jdp.
In that case, plaintiff alleged that he was transferred to
JCI to be part of a pilot program to treat hepatitis C, but
that he was removed from the program after a discussion with
defendant Nurse Cheryl Marsolek about the high-fat meals that
were served as part of the program. Plaintiff contended that
he was terminated from the program without a good reason, the
defendants in that case would not place him back in the
program, and he was given no other treatment in its place.
See Dkt. 5 in the '41 case.
The bulk of plaintiff's complaint reiterates those
allegations. The problem for plaintiff is that the '41
case was dismissed without prejudice for his failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies . . . .
Dkt. 6, at 2. Plaintiff brought new allegations that he later
attempted to file grievances about his removal from the
hepatitis C program, but they were denied as untimely. I
concluded that plaintiff's untimely grievances were
insufficient to overcome his initial failure to exhaust his
claims, so he could not bring those exhausted claims in a new
plaintiff also appeared to bring claims about defendants'
refusal to reinstate him into the program or provide him with
other treatment. The problem with plaintiff's claims
regarding follow-up care is that he provided almost no
information about the treatment he received or failed to
receive. I dismissed that portion of the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and gave plaintiff a chance
to file an amended complaint explaining his claims about
follow-up treatment. Id.
has responded with an amended complaint, Dkt. 7, that does
not provide the information I asked for. By far the most
detailed portion of the amended complaint is the part where
plaintiff rehashes the incident in which he was terminated
from the hepatitis C program and his communications with
defendants in the immediate aftermath of that termination.
But those are the events that I have already concluded cannot
support constitutional claims because plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies about them. Plaintiff has
failed to explain what happened after those events
regarding his hepatitis C treatment. The amended complaint
therefore fails to comply with Rule 8 just as the original
give plaintiff a final chance to explain the basis for his
claims. He should explain the following in short and plain
• When did he ask for reinstatement to the hepatitis C
program? Who did he ask for reinstatement? How did they
• What other medical care did he receive for hepatitis
C? What medical professionals did plaintiff see about this
illness, and how did they choose to treat him?
• How has the lack of adequate treatment harmed
• What does he want each of the named defendants to do
differently to adequately treat him?
plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint by the
deadline set forth below, I will dismiss the case for
plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
has also renewed his previous request for assistance in
recruiting counsel. He attaches to his new motion three
letters from attorneys who have declined to represent him,
which indicates that plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to
locate outside counsel and failed. But I will deny his new
motion for the same reason I denied the previous one: There
is no reason to think that plaintiff needs counsel to amend
his complaint, and the case has not even passed the