United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
CHARLES L. NORWOOD a/k/a CHELSY NORWOOD, Plaintiff,
DR. KALLAS, Defendant.
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
plaintiff, who is currently serving a state prison sentence
at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF), filed a
pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This matter comes before the court on the
plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying
the full filing fee, motions to proceed, to compel, and to
amend the caption, and to screen the complaint.
to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
plaintiff is required to pay the $400.00 filing fee for this
action, which includes the $350.00 statutory filing fee and a
$50.00 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). If a prisoner does not have the money to pay the
filing fee, he can request leave to proceed without
prepayment of the full filing fee. In that case, the prisoner
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required
to pay the full amount of the $350.00 statutory filing fee
but not the $50.00 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). The plaintiff has filed a certified copy
of the plaintiff's prison trust account statement for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). On
June 21, 2018, the court waived the initial partial filing
fee and directed the plaintiff to advise the court whether
the plaintiff wished to proceed with the case. On July 5,
2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed with the case.
The plaintiff's motions to proceed and for leave to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee will be granted, and
the court will screen the complaint.
of the Complaint
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised 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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex
rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997).
state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, the plaintiff is required to provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “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)). The court accepts
the factual allegations as true and liberally construes them
in the plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, the complaint
allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
on the court's reading of the complaint, it appears the
plaintiff's complaint violates Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it does not include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Instead, the complaint lists the plaintiff's
disputes with correctional and medical staff over a
several-month period of time. The allegations are unclear as
to who did what, when and what happened as a result. Where
multiple claims are asserted, a complaint is required to list
each claim separately and set forth thereunder, preferably in
numbered paragraphs, the allegations of fact necessary to
provide notice to each defendant of what he or she did to, or
did not do for, the plaintiff, including any injuries that
resulted, that potentially gives rise to personal liability
on the part of a defendant and warrants requiring that he or
she respond to a federal lawsuit. See George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that
plaintiffs “must give enough detail to illuminate the
nature of the claim and allow defendants to respond”).
plaintiff should also be aware of the rule against joining
multiple unrelated claims against different defendants in the
same pleading. “Unrelated claims against different
defendants belong in different suits, ” so as to
prevent prisoners from dodging the fee payment or three
strikes provision in the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Id. at 607. Violation of this rule can also result
in dismissal of the complaint.
court finds that the complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The court will therefore strike the
original complaint submitted on May 31, 2018. If the
plaintiff wishes to proceed, the plaintiff must file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies in the original
complaint as described herein. The court will provide the
plaintiff with a copy of the court's § 1983 prisoner
complaint form. The plaintiff should list each
defendant's name in the caption of the amended complaint.
An amended complaint must be filed on or before
August 6, 2018. Failure to file an amended
complaint within this time period may result in dismissal of
plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must bear the
docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled
“Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint
supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself
without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v.
Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84,
133 F.3d 1054, 1056 (7th Cir. 1998). In Duda, the
appellate court emphasized that in such instances, the
“prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all
matters not restated in the amended pleading.”
Id. at 1057 (citation omitted). If the amended
complaint is received, it will become the operative complaint
in this action, and the court will screen it in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
the plaintiff is advised that 42 U.S.C. § 1983
“creates a cause of action based on personal liability
and predicated upon fault; thus liability does not attach
unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional violation.” Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the doctrine of
respondeat superior (supervisory liability) does not apply to
actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Pacelli v.
deVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). Section 1983
does not create collective or vicarious responsibility.
Id. Thus, with respect to any claim or claims
advanced in the amended complaint, the plaintiff must
identify the individual defendants and specify the manner in
which their actions, or failure to take action, violated the
plaintiff's constitutional rights.
plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the administrators at
MSDF to grant a legal loan. But because neither MSDF nor its
administrators are defendants in this case, the court cannot
order the institution to provide the plaintiff with a legal