United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 104), DIRECTING
THAT #5 AT PAGE 5 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, DKT NO. 10, IS
THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, ORDERING SERVICE OF THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT CO HANNAH AND DISMISSING ALL
DEFENDANTS BUT CO HANNAH AND JOHN DOE COS 1-3
Pamela Pepper United States District Judge.
plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint which includes
claims that the court has twice ordered do not belong in the
case. Dkt. No. 104. The court will strike the second amended
complaint and allow the plaintiff to proceed on Claim 1, set
out in #5 at page 5 of his June 8, 2016 amended complaint,
dkt. no. 10.
February 25, 2019, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss unrelated claims and determined that the
plaintiff could not proceed on his amended complaint, dkt.
no. 10, because it violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18 and 20. Dkt. No. 99 at 1. The court ordered that if the
plaintiff wanted to proceed, he would have to file separate
complaints for each of his six claims. Id. The court
ordered that by April 12, 2019, the plaintiff must file a
second amended complaint in this case
related to Claim 1 from the amended complaint, and that he
should file separate new complaints for each
of Claims 2 through 6 of the amended complaint. Id.
at 11-14. The court also ordered that the plaintiff would not
be able to proceed on any new claims that he did not raise in
Claims 1-6, as described in the court's order.
Id. at 14.
March 4, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration (titled a motion for review) of the
court's February 25, 2019 order; he argued that the court
erred when it decided that his claims were mis-joined. Dkt.
No. 100 at 1. Two days later, the court received from the
plaintiff a proposed second amended complaint which
reiterated all six claims, and which included a cover letter
asserting that this proposed pleading corrected the
misjoinder problem the court had identified. Dkt. Nos. 101,
court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
and struck the proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. No.
103. The court explained that
[t]he plaintiff has not shown that the court's February
25, 2019 order constituted a manifest error of law or fact.
Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, the
plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint contains
separate claims that belong in separate cases. The fact that
the claims arose at the Milwaukee County Jail does not mean
that they belong in the same case. The court acknowledges
that its 2016 screening order allowed the plaintiff to
proceed on the claims; it acknowledged that fact in its
February 25, 2019 order, when it conceded that it should not
have permitted the claims to proceed in the same case. Dkt.
No. 100 at 5-10. Rather than just dismissing the case, the
court has given the plaintiff the opportunity to file his
The court will deny the plaintiff's motion for review and
it will strike the plaintiff's proposed second amended
complaint. The plaintiff still has the opportunity to file a
single, second amended complaint, addressing the facts
surrounding Claim 1, by April 12, 2019.
Dkt. No. 103 at 4.
Plaintiff's April 10, 2019 Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.
noted, the proposed second amended complaint again includes
all six of the plaintiff's claims. Dkt. No. 104. The
plaintiff filed a cover letter in which he stated that the
second amended complaint included all “related matters
pertaining to claim one (1).” Dkt. No. 104-1. He
asserted that the claims all relate to treatment he received
at the Milwaukee County Jail after Major Nancy Evans (Major
Jane Doe) placed him in segregation. Id. “As
such it show[s] a ‘continuing violation of my rights,
and the Mental Health Medication side-effects may account for
the suicidal thoughts and illregular [sic] behavior.”
court has explained twice now, the plaintiff may not proceed
on all these claims in the same case. Dkt. No. 99 at 5-10;
Dkt. No. 103 at 1-4. The plaintiff's second amended
complaint does not change the court's mind about its
prior rulings on this issue, nor has the plaintiff shown that
the court erred. The court has given the plaintiff two
chances to follow its orders by filing a second amended
related to the allegations in the first claim on which the
court allowed him to proceed-#5 at page 5 of his June 8, 2016
amended complaint, the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force
and Eighth Amendment failure to provide medical care claims
against CO Hannah and ...