United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
KEVIN M.S. OLLIE, Plaintiff,
MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE, MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD, and MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
three-month span, the plaintiff filed four complaints in this
district against a technical college, a mental health
complex, a local non-profit organization, the NBA, NFL,
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, a McDonald's employee in
Illinois and many others. See Ollie v. Wisconsin Cmty.
Serv., et al., No. 19-cv-271 (E.D. Wis. 2019); Ollie
v. Milwaukee Cty. Behavioral Health Div., et al., No.
19-cv-272 (E.D. Wis. 2019); and Ollie v. Nat'l.
Basketball Ass'n, et al., No. 19-cv-745 (E.D. Wis.
2019). Defendants named in this case also appear as
defendants in No. 19-cv-745. Because the plaintiff has failed
to state a claim for which a federal court can grant relief,
the court will dismiss this case without prejudice.
Plaintiff's Ability to Pay the Filing Fee
allow the plaintiff to proceed without prepaying the filing
fee, the court first must decide whether the plaintiff can
pay the fee; if not, it must determine whether the lawsuit is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§1915(a) and
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The plaintiff's request to proceed
without prepaying the fee states that he does not have any
income of any kind. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. The request indicates
that the plaintiff has $600 a month in expenses--$300 a month
for rent and $300 a month for utilities. Id. at 2-3.
He doesn't own any property of value. Id. at 3.
The court concludes that the plaintiff does not have the
ability to pay the filing fee.
court next must decide whether the plaintiff 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). To state a
claim under the federal notice pleading system, a plaintiff
must provide a “short and plain statement of the
claim” showing that he is entitled to relief.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff does not need to plead
every fact supporting his claims; he needs only to give the
defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which
it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
47 (1957)). At the same time, the allegations “must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id., 550 U.S. at 555. Because the
plaintiff represents himself, the court must liberally
construe the allegations of his complaint. Erikson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Facts Alleged in the Complaint
plaintiff lists as defendants Milwaukee Area Technical
College (MATC), the MATC College Office of Student Life, the
MATC District Board and an MATC Affirmative Action Officer.
Dkt. No. 1. At the same time, paragraph one of the complaint
alleges the following individuals or entities violated his
rights: “affirmative action officer, district board,
chief disciplinary officer, college, college community,
college officials, executive vice president, designee,
director of student life, faculty members, hearing committee,
hearing officer, vice president of student services, Carla
Holloway, Archie Graham, Bruce Schoenberger, Camille Nicolai,
Robert A. Kurth and Black Student Union.” Id.
plaintiff says that he complained three times about academic
misconduct. Id. The defendants allegedly
“flip[ped] the script” on the plaintiff.
Id. at 3. The plaintiff's grades dropped, and he
had to meet with Robert A. Kurth who told him he had
“reconstructive and aggressive behavior.”
Id. The plaintiff alleges that:
I was put on medication that cause people to suicide thoughts
and talk with a muscle movement problem with (my mouth, jaw,
and teeth) I can't control. Then dropped. From class Oct.
5, 2016. It started April 5, 2014 - present. Still dealing
with unresolved issues with the defendant(s). Everything
happened on campus. Excuse me. #5. Whey they did it, if you
know? I believe it's obviously not the first this done
happen. Why do we have to relieve this moment! Gosh!
Id. at 4.
plaintiff then explains it's not about the student loans
but rather “standing up to bullying.”
Id. at 5. He alleges he will never perform on stage
again with his speech problem and the medication caused him
to have suicidal thoughts. Id. “They”
called him the devil before he left. Id. The
plaintiff now fears going to any other college in Wisconsin.
court has explained to the plaintiff in the past, there are
limits on the kinds of cases that a federal court may
consider. See No. 19-cv-271, Dkt. No. 3 at 3. Courts can
consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal
laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Federal courts also can consider and decide lawsuits between
citizens of different states-if the amount they are fighting
over is more than $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §§1332.
Federal courts cannot consider and decide lawsuits that