United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JUMAR K. JONES, Plaintiff,
JON LITSCHER, JIM SCHWOCHERT, SCOTT ECKSTEIN, JOHN KIND, CAPTAIN BAUMANN, ALAN DEGROOT, MICHELLE HAESE, SGT. FRANCIOS, SGT. ROSE, SGT. SPOERL, SPT. PALTZ, and MICHAEL DONOVAN, Defendants.
AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S
MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO.
2), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 7), DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO.
12), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S STATUS MOTION (DKT. NO. 14)
SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 13),
AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, a state prisoner who is representing himself,
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that
the defendants violated his civil rights. Dkt. No. 1. He also
has filed several motions. The court will address the motions
in this order, as well as screening the plaintiff's
Memorandum of Law for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No.
same day he filed his complaint, the plaintiff filed a
document entitled “Memorandum of Law for Temporary
Restraining Order.” Dkt. No. 2. The court construes
this document as a motion, asking the court to issue a
temporary restraining order.
plaintiff correctly states the standard that the court
considers in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief, and
as he points out, the first standard the court has to
consider is whether the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits of his lawsuit. Dkt. No. 2 at 1
(citing Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n
v. Hinson, 102 F.3d 1421, 1424-24 (7th Cir. 1996)). For
reasons that the court will explain below, the court is not
in a position to determine whether the plaintiff has a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his case.
Further, the defendants have not been served with the
plaintiff's motion (or his complaint, as the court
explains below), and have not had an opportunity to respond.
The court will deny the motion without prejudice. The
plaintiff may re-file his motion if, and when, the court
issues an order allowing him to proceed on particular claims.
Motion For Leave To Proceed Without Prepaying the Filing Fee
(Dkt. No. 7)
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because the
plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. §1915. That law allows a court to give an
incarcerated plaintiff the ability to proceed with his
lawsuit without prepaying the civil case filing fee, as long
as he meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is
that the plaintiff must pay an initial partial filing fee. 28
U.S.C. §1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays the initial
partial filing fee, the court may allow the plaintiff to pay
the balance of the $350 filing fee over time, through
deductions from his prisoner account. Id.
25, 2017, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $37.45. Dkt. No. 6. The plaintiff paid
that fee on June 5, 2017. Therefore, the court will grant the
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of
the filing fee over time in the manner explained at the end
of this order.
Motion to Add Defendants (Dkt. No. 12) and Proposed
Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 13)
28, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to
allow him to add two defendants-Nys and Dillenberg. Dkt. No.
12. About four months later, the plaintiff filed a proposed
amended complaint. Dkt. No. 13. He did not, however, name Nys
or Dillenberg in the amended complaint.
certain circumstances, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 allows a plaintiff to
amend his complaint once without the court's permission.
The court will treat the amended complaint at dkt. no. 13 as
the operative complaint (which means that it will replace the
court will deny without prejudice the plaintiff's motion
to add Nys and Dillenberg as defendants. Dkt. No. 12. It is
not clear to the court why the plaintiff filed the motion
asking to add those defendants, but did not include them in
the amended complaint he filed a month later. As the court
explains below, it is going to require the plaintiff to file
a second amended complaint. If the claims the plaintiff
believes he has against Nys and Dillenberg arise out of the
same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences as any other claims he includes in that second
amended complaint, he may include them in that complaint.
Status Motion (Dkt. No. 14)
February 22, 2018-about seven months after the plaintiff
filed his request to add defendants-the plaintiff filed a
document that he called a “status motion.” Dkt.
No. 14. He asked the court to enter an order requiring the
defendants to answer the complaint, and “to move