Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ollie v. Milwaukee Area Technical College

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 25, 2019

KEVIN M.S. OLLIE, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         In a 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.

         I. Plaintiff's Ability to Pay the Filing Fee

         To 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.

         II. Screening

         The 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).

         A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

         The 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. at 2.

         The 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.

         The 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. Id.

         B. Analysis

         As the 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.