Frohwerk v. Unknown Officials of WCU

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER striking the 1 complaint. Amended Complaint to be filed by 7/25/2011.. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/27/11. cc: pltf w/forms(kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID FROHWERK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNKNOWN OFFICIALS OF
WCU,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-210

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court

STRIKES the complaint; DIRECTS the Clerk to send the Plaintiff a
blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form; and GRANTS him
until July 25, 2011, within which to file an amended complaint
containing only a single claim or related claims.

BACKGROUND
David Frohwerk is a state prisoner confined at the Westville
Correctional Facility (”WCF”).

He has filed a complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that WCF officials
violated his right to access to the court by interfering with his
right to seek redress of grievances by being forced to place mail
to the courts “unsecurly by depositing them in a mail bag opened .
. . to be inspected by one of the defendants” (DE #1 at 3).

He

also

alleges

that

two

correctional

officers

withheld

legal

materials from him, causing him “to appear in [the] LaPorte Circuit
Court under prepared . . .” (DE #1 at 4).

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), district courts must review
the merits of any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity,” and dismiss it if the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the

dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts
apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion
under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006).
The pleading standards in the context of a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim are that the “plaintiff’s obligation
to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Bell Atlantic v.

A court should assume the

veracity of a complaint’s allegations, and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.

2

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50; 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 884 (2009).
In the context of pro se litigation, the Supreme Court stated
that “[s]pecific facts are not necessary” to meet the requirements
of Rule 8(a).

The Court further noted that a “document filed pro

se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.
2197, 2200 (2007).
Although he does not name the defendants in the caption,
Frohwerk does identify, in the body of the complaint, specific WCF
officials he believes violated his federally protected rights.

He

alleges that “former law library supervisor Maria Carter and other
persons unknown . . . [prevented him from] . . . obtain[ing]
secure, meaningful access to the courts and government” (DE #1 at
3).

Frohwerk alleges that Defendant Carter interfered with his

right to seek redress of grievances by requiring him to place mail
to the courts “unsecurly by depositing them in a mail bag opened .
. . to be inspected” by prison officials (DE #1 at 3).
Frohwerk also alleges that Correctional Officers Cole and Nash
violated his federally protected rights between January 31, 2011,
and February 16, 2011, when they denied him access to legal
materials he believes he needed to prepare for a hearing in the
LaPorte Circuit Court on or about February 16, 2011. (DE #1 at 4.)
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007), a district court must “question” and “reject” any complaint

3

that contains unrelated claims against separate defendants:
A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if
filed by a free person- say, a suit
complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B
defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a
debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in
different transactions- should be rejected if
filed by a prisoner. [Plaintiff] did not make
any effort to show that the 24 defendants he
named had participated in the same transaction
or series of transactions or that a question
of fact is “common to all defendants”.
George, 507 F.3d at 607.

In that case, the Seventh Circuit

criticized the district court because:
[it] did not question [Plaintiff’s] decision
to join 24 defendants, and approximately 50
distinct claims, in a single suit. It should
have done so.
The controlling principle
appears in FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a): “A party
asserting a claim to relief as an original
claim,
counterclaim,
cross-claim,
or
third-party claim, may join, either as
independent or as alternate claims, as many
claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the
party has against an opposing party.”
Thus
multiple claims against a single party are
fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should
not be joined with unrelated Claim B against
Defendant 2.
Unrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different
suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass
that this 50-claim, 24-defendant suit produced
but also to ensure that prisoners pay the
required
filing
feesfor
the
Prison
Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number
of frivolous suits or appeals that any
prisoner may file without prepayment of the
required fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
[Plaintiff] was trying not only to save money
but also to dodge that rule. He hoped that if
even 1 of his 50 claims were deemed
non-frivolous, he would receive no “strikes”
at all, as opposed to the 49 that would result
4

from making 49 frivolous claims in a batch of
50 suits.
Id. at 607.
This case is similar to George in that Frohwerk is attempting
to bring unrelated claims against separate defendants in a single
case.

As instructed by George, this Court must reject this

attempt.

Therefore, the original complaint will be stricken with

leave to file an amended complaint incorporating only related
claims.

Frohwerk may bring only properly related claims in his

amended complaint in this case.
in separate cases.

Unrelated claims must be brought

For example, if Frohwerk brings the claim that

Carter violated his rights by forcing him to submit his mail to the
courts in a mail bag that would be inspected in this case, he would
need to bring the claim that Officers Cole and Nash deprived him of
legal materials he needed to prepare for a hearing in another
complaint.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
(1) STRIKES the complaint (DE #1);
(2) DIRECTS the Clerk to send the Plaintiff along with his
copy of this order, a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983
form with this cause number already printed on it, summonses, and
USM-285 forms;
(3) GRANTS him to and including July 25, 2011, within which to

5

file an amended complaint containing only a single claim or related
claims,

and

providing

the

materials

necessary

to

serve

the

defendants; and
(4) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by that deadline,
this case will closed without further notice.

DATED: June 27, 2011

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

6