Buy This Entire Record For
Gilbert v. State
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
May 5, 2017
CARL C. GILBERT II, Plaintiff,
STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEPT. HEALTH & SERVICE, SAND RIDGE SECURE TREATMENT CENTER, DEBORAH MCCULLOCH, ROBERT KNEEPKENS, SARAH STUCKEY, KRIST RICK, MARK SPEES, JEFF HRUSKA, VALERIE LITTY, ROSE GRIFFA, PAULA GILES, ROBERT GUNN, and JOHN JOE DEFENDANTS 1-130, Defendants. CARL C. GILBERT II, Plaintiff,
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (SECRETARY), DEBORAH MCCULLOCH, KAY MORSE, ROBERT KNEEPHKENS, STEVE SCHNIEDER, JEFFREY HRUSKA, MARK SPEES, ROBERT GUNN, KEITH RAMSEY, JASON SMITH, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-160, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON District Judge.
plaintiff Carl C. Gilbert II, a civil detainee confined at
the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, filed these two
proposed civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that Sand Ridge staff members have violated his
constitutional rights in several ways, including unlawfully
holding him at the facility, placing false information in his
sex-offender treatment notes to ensure he could not progress
in his treatment, failing to treat his medical problems, and
failing to protect him from assaults by another patient.
dismissed Gilbert's complaints in these actions because
they did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8
and 20. In particular, Gilbert failed to identify which of
the many defendants identified in the captions actually
directly took the actions that he claims harmed him (he
included several named defendants and 130 John Doe defendants
in case no. 14-cv-427-jdp and several named defendants and
160 Doe defendants in case no. 14-cv-466-jdp). He also joined
together many seemingly unrelated claims. I explained to
Gilbert how to amend his complaints, and gave him a chance to
submit an amended complaint in each case. Dkt. 25. 
dismissed these cases after Gilbert filed a proposed combined
amended complaint containing the same problems as his earlier
complaints, see Dkt. 42, and then failed to respond
to my order giving him a chance to submit new amended
complaints, see Dkt. 43. I also denied Gilbert's
motion for assistance in recruiting him counsel because he
had not submitted recent letters indicating that lawyers will
not take his cases, and because I was not convinced that he
needed help to file complaints that complied with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
three weeks after the cases were dismissed, Gilbert submitted
a proposed amended complaint, motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal of his actions, motion for extension of time to
file his amended complaint, and renewed request for the
assistance of counsel. I denied all of these motions.
See Dkt. 49. In particular, I concluded that there
was no reason to consider reopening his cases because his new
proposed amended complaint suffered from the same problems as
his previous complaints. Id. at 3-4. I also denied
his renewed motion for the recruitment of counsel because
“he continue[d] to fail to demonstrate whether he has
asked outside attorneys to represent him with these
cases” and “[t]here [was] also little reason to
think that he genuinely needs counsel to fill out a
comprehensible complaint.” Id. at 4. I
instructed Gilbert that I would not reopen these cases, but
he was free to file a brand-new cases containing only one of
the several types of claims he attempted to pack into these
than two months later, Gilbert has responded to my last order
by filing another motion for reconsideration, a motion to
stop Sand Ridge officials from hindering his litigation
efforts, and documents showing that he has contacted several
lawyers about representing him who have turned him down. Dkt.
50 & Dkt. 51. Shortly thereafter, he filed a brand-new
complaint along with another Sand Ridge resident. See
Gilbert v. State of Wisconsin, No. 16-cv-729-jdp (W.D.
does not include a new complaint with these materials because
he says that Sand Ridge officials are interfering with his
litigation efforts. The fact that he has filed a brand-new
complaint in a new lawsuit casts doubt on the accuracy of
this allegation. In any event, it is too late for him to make
yet another attempt at fixing his complaints in these cases.
As I stated in the last order, these cases are closed and he
can pursue a new lawsuit if his allegations are sufficiently
clear and limited to claims that belong together in one case.
Because these cases will remain closed, I will not consider
his new documents regarding recruitment of counsel. I will
screen his new complaint in a separate order.
Plaintiff Carl Gilbert's motion for reconsideration of my
dismissal of these cases, Dkt. 50, is DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion for an order directing prison
officials to stop interfering in his litigation efforts, Dkt.
51, is DENIED as moot.
All docket references are to
case no. ...