United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION and ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge
motions are before the court in this case brought by pro se
plaintiff Khaled Shabani: (1) a motion to dismiss filed by
defendants M. Baker, Jennifer Krueger Favour, Andew Naylor
and the Madison Police Department, dkt. #29; (2) a motion to
dismiss filed by defendant Jessica Sososka, dkt. #32; and (3)
plaintiff's request for assistance in recruiting counsel,
dkt. #27. In addition, plaintiff has filed two untitled
documents that I construe as supplements to his complaint.
Dkt. ##25 and 28. (Earlier in the case, plaintiff filed
another supplement that the court construed as a motion for
preliminary injunction. Dkt. ##17 and 20.) For the reasons
explained below, I am granting the motions to dismiss and
denying the motion for assistance in recruiting counsel.
However, I will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint to correct the problems identified in this order.
Motions to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must provide
fair notice to each defendant and set out claims that are
plausible on their face. Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 622 (7th Cir. 2012);
Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 559 (7th Cir.
2010). Plaintiff's complaint does not satisfy this
standard, even when viewed in combination with his
Summary of allegations
original complaint, plaintiff says that the “Madison
Police Department” has been “continuously
harassing” him since 2006 “because of [his]
race.” Dkt. #1. He does not identify any particular
individuals who have been harassing him and he does not
explain how he is being harassed.
various supplements to his complaint, plaintiff has provided
some additional allegations. The most comprehensive is a
document he filed on December 2, 2016, dkt. #17, in which he
alleges that unnamed police officers threatened to hurt his
daughter, harassed him at work, fabricated a disorderly
conduct charge against him, “poisoned [him] with
bacteria” and most recently “curs[ed]” at
him and “humiliated” him in public. However, he
provides little explanation for any of these allegations.
second supplement, plaintiff repeats some of the same
allegations. Dkt. #25. In addition, he alleges that the
“Madison Police Department” is engaging in the
following conduct: (1) “threatening” him
“after they beat [his] 3 year old on her eye for no
reason”; (2) telling employees at his barber shop to
quit their jobs; (3) “trying to get [him] to
drop” this lawsuit; (4) threatening to “beat
[his] daughter again”; (5) and trying to “run
[him] out of business.” Again, he does not identify any
particular individuals engaging in this conduct and he does
not provide any context for his allegations. For example, he
does not describe the incident in which officers allegedly
assaulted his daughter and he does not explain how officers
are allegedly trying to get him to dismiss this lawsuit or
harm his business.
third supplement, plaintiff repeats many of the same
allegations again. Dkt. #28. He also alleges that defendant
Jessica Sosoka and an unnamed officer “intimidated
[him] on [S]tate [S]t[.] and pretend[ed] they want[ed] to
arrest” him. The unknown officer “grab[bed] his
sti[c]k” and “got close to” plaintiff.
Sufficiency of the allegations
plaintiff's allegations either fail to provide fair
notice to the defendants or do not state a plausible claim.
As to defendants Favour, Naylor and Baker, plaintiff does not
mention them in the body of his complaint or any of his
supplements. By failing to provide any information about what
those defendants allegedly did to violate his rights, he has
not provided fair notice to those defendants. Grieveson
v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 778 (7th Cir. 2008)
(plaintiffs may not rely on "[v]ague references to a
group of ‘defendants, ' without specific
allegations tying the individual defendants to the alleged
unconstitutional conduct"). Accordingly, the complaint
must be dismissed as to those defendants.
only allegation against defendant Sosoka is that she
“intimidated” him and “pretend[ed]”
that she wanted to arrest him. This allegation does not state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a
person from searching or seizing a person without
justification, but plaintiff does not allege that Sososka
actually arrested him, detained him or even touched him. If
there was no search or seizure, Sosoka's conduct did not
violate the Constitution. McCoy v. Harrison, 341
F.3d 600, 605 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Even unreasonable,
unjustified, or outrageous conduct ...