United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
case arises out of events that occurred in April 2014 after
pro se plaintiff Caroline Paula More was arrested in
Lafayette County, Wisconsin. More has filed three complaints
in this case, each of which has a different scope.
understand the issues before the court now, some background
is needed. After various defendants moved to dismiss her
first complaint, More amended the complaint as a matter of
right under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dkt. 16. When the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, More moved to amend her complaint again, but
without filing a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 23. In
response, I gave More a deadline for filing a proposed
complaint and instructed her that I would screen the
complaint before determining whether she could proceed. Dkt.
filed a second amended complaint (which she labels
incorrectly as her “third amended complaint”),
adding several more defendants, including Memorial Hospital
of Lafayette County, Jack Sauer, Deputy Loeffelhoz, Deputy
Gill, Sheriff Pedly, Kevin Florek, Doctor Woodruff, Doctor
Sarino, Brad Shimel, and Scott Walker, though she does not
discuss most of the new defendants anywhere in the body of
her new complaint. Dkt. 34. After More filed her second
amended complaint, the defendants who are named in both the
original complaint and first amended complaint have renewed
their motions to dismiss. Dkt. 35 and Dkt. 36. The new
defendants listed above have not been served.)
grant More's motion for leave to amend her complaint and
I will allow her to proceed on a claim that defendants
Loeffelholz and Gill violated the Fourth Amendment and state
law by driving recklessly while transporting More and causing
her to break her tooth. I will dismiss the remaining federal
law claims for More's failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and I will dismiss her remaining state
law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
provides few factual allegations in her second amended
complaint. Most of the nine-page document consists of
legal argument, which does not belong in a complaint. But my
understanding of her allegations is as follows.
April 2014, unnamed “county deputies” in
Lafayette County arrested More for an unspecified crime.
While transporting More, defendants Loeffelholz and Gill
(deputy sheriffs for Lafayette County) drove their vehicle
“in such a manner that [More's] face and mouth
str[uck] a barrier, ” causing More to lose one of her
front teeth. In the following days and weeks, More was
treated at Memorial Hospital of Lafayette County, Tellurian
Detox, and the Winnebago Mental Health Institute, where she
was under the care of Dr. Sarino and Dr. Woodruff. More
believes that she did not receive adequate care at any of
those facilities for her “Vulvar Pain, ”
“low-level opioid addiction, ” or “alcohol
dependence health problem(s).”
first question is whether this court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this case. Jakupovic v. Curran,
850 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2017). Generally, a plaintiff
suing in federal court must show either that she is raising a
federal claim, 28 U.S.C. §. 1331, or that she and the
defendants are citizens of different states and that more
than $75, 000 is in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
§ 1331, More does not identify any federal claims in her
brief in response to the motions to dismiss, even though
every defendant that filed a motion to dismiss is contending
that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
case. Instead, she devotes almost all of her brief to
Wis.Stat. § 51.42, which imposes requirements on
counties to provide services related to mental health,
developmental disabilities, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
Because § 51.42 is a state law, it cannot serve as the
basis for jurisdiction under § 1331.
cites several federal laws in her second amended complaint.
First, she cites 28 U.S.C. § 1346, but that law applies
only when the United States is a defendant. More has not sued
the United States and her allegations do not suggest that she
would have any grounds for doing so.
she cites the Americans with Disabilities Act, stating that a
“reasonable accommodation rightfully should have been
provided by both this county, and the state of
Wisconsin.” Dkt. 34, at 2. The ADA prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability and applies to
certain employers, public accommodations, and public
programs, services, and activities. Brumfield v. City of
Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 624-30 (7th Cir. 2013)
(describing scope of ADA).
I assume that More qualifies as an individual with a
disability, it is not clear how the ADA could apply in this
case. More does not allege that any of the defendants were
her employer and she does not alleges that she was denied
access to a public program, service, or activity. Hospitals
can qualify as a public accommodation, e.g.,
Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hosp., 782 F.3d 331,