Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grant v. Julson

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

July 5, 2017

JASON GRANT, Plaintiff,
v.
MR. JULSON, MR. MITCHELL, MR. DITTMAN and MR. BATE, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge.

         Pro se plaintiff Jason Grant, who is incarcerated at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, alleges that defendants disciplined him by confining him to his cell without first providing him an administrative hearing, in violation of his rights under the due process clause and the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff is proceeding under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has made his initial partial payment as required by § 1915(b)(1).

         Because plaintiff is a prisoner, I am required by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act to screen his complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A threshold problem is that plaintiff filed a complaint, dkt. #1, regarding one disciplinary action, and then several weeks later moved to file a supplemental complaint, dkt. #7, seeking to add allegations about a different disciplinary action involving different prison officials. The supplemental complaint did not repeat the allegations in the original complaint. Generally, a plaintiff cannot proceed with multiple complaints; rather, the rule is that an amended complaint replaces any complaint that was filed earlier. Flannery v. Recording Industry Association of America, 354 F.3d 632, 638 (7th Cir. 2004) (amended complaint “renders the original complaint void”). In addition, a litigant cannot throw all of his grievances against different parties into one stewpot. Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc, 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Joinder that requires the inclusion of extra parties is limited to claims arising from the same transaction or series of related transactions.”).

         I need not decide whether plaintiffs claims arise under the same series of transactions or ask plaintiff to refile his complaint as one document because, whether the documents are considered separately or as one document, none of the allegations state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, I am dismissing this case and directing the clerk of court to record a strike in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

         The following facts are drawn from plaintiff's complaint and supplemental complaint.

         ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

         Plaintiff alleges the following in his original complaint:

. Defendant Mitchell, a correctional officer, issued him a conduct report on November 19, 2016 for disobeying orders;
. Defendant Julson, a supervisor, approved the conduct report;
. Defendant Bate, a correctional officer, read plaintiff the conduct report and told plaintiff that he would write down plaintiffs statement in response;
. Defendant Julson found plaintiff guilty without hearing from plaintiff directly and ordered that plaintiff be confined to his cell for ten days (November 19-28, 2016);
. During his cell confinement, plaintiff was allowed out only to shower and get food and did not have access to recreation, the law library, a phone or the day room; and
. Plaintiff appealed the decision to defendant Dittman, the warden, who dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

         In his motion to file a supplemental complaint, plaintiff alleges that Captain Schulty approved a conduct report that was served on plaintiff on May 22, 2017 and confined plaintiff to his cell for 22 days (May 22 to June 12, 2017) without due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.