United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ANDRAE L. DOTSON, Plaintiff,
MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT 2, SGT. KALTENBRUN, AARON FRANTAL, P.O. VARGAS-RAMOS, P.O. KLARKOWSKI, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
Andrae L. Dotson ("Dotson"), proceeding pro
se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights. (Docket #1). On February 14, 2018, Dotson filed two
motions to amend/correct his complaint. (Docket #4 and #5).
On April 11, 2018, Dotson filed another motion to
amend/correct his complaint. (Docket #14). On April 20, 2018,
he filed a motion to supplement his complaint. (Docket #15).
Dotson has also filed a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, (Docket #2), a motion for
discovery, (Docket #7), and a motion for counsel, (Docket
#13). This decision resolves Dotson's motions and screens
case is currently assigned to Magistrate Judge David E.
Jones. However, because not all parties have had the
opportunity to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the
case was randomly referred to District Judge J. P.
Stadtmueller for the limited purpose of screening the
complaint. The case will be returned to Magistrate Jones for
further proceedings after entry of this Order.
Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because
Dotson 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 case
without prepaying the civil case filing fee, as long as he
meets certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the
plaintiff 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.
March 1, 2018, the Court ordered Dotson to pay an initial
partial filing fee of $57.10. (Docket #11). Dotson paid that
fee on March 12, 2018. Therefore, the Court will grant
Dotson'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
Motions to Amend Complaint and Motion to Supplement
has filed three different motions seeking to amend his
complaint and a motion to supplement his complaint. With
regard to his motions to amend, Dotson did not comply with
the procedural rules in connection with amending a complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Civil Local Rule 15
(E.D. Wis.) require that the plaintiff file a motion seeking
leave to amend his complaint and attach to the motion the
proposed amended complaint. An amended complaint replaces
previously filed complaints, so a plaintiff cannot simply
tack on claims or defendants with separate filings. All of
the parties and claims need to be included in one document.
Because Dotson did not comply with the applicable rules in
any of his motions to amend his complaint, the Court will
deny all of those motions.
also failed to comply with the applicable rules for
supplementing his complaint. Under Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 15(d), "on motion and reasonable notice, the
Court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a
supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of
the pleading to be supplemented." That is, a Court will
"permit a supplemental pleading when a party wishes to
bring up events occurring subsequent to the original pleading
that relate to a claim or defense presented in the original
pleading." Habitat Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Kimbell,
250 F.R.D. 397, 402 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Dotson, however, asks
to be allowed to supplement his original complaint with a
claim based on an event that occurred prior to when he filed
his original complaint. Therefore, he failed to comply with
applicable rules. The Court will deny his motion and will
move forward with screening his original complaint.
of the Complaint
Federal Screening Standard
requires the Court to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff raises
claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, "
that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, "that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a Court to
draw the reasonable inference that the ...