Bowers v. Thurmer et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 10/6/10: denying 8 plaintiff's Motion to File Amicus Brief; DISMISSING this action with prejudice as frivolous; and directing the Clerk of Court document that this inmate has incurred a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (cc: plaintiff, all counsel)(nm)

Bow e r s v. Thurmer et al

Do c. 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
D A V ID ELIJAH BOW E R S , JR, P l a i n t if f, v. M IC H A E L THURMER, et al., D e fe n d a n ts . C a s e No. 10-CV-63

ORDER
O n May 13, 2010, the court dismissed David Bowers' complaint as u n in te llig ib le , but provided him an opportunity to file an amended complaint by June 7 , 2010. See Court's Order of May 13, 2010, at 4-5. Plaintiff was advised to file his a m e n d e d complaint using an enclosed form complaint, to limit his pleading by stating a s briefly as possible the facts of his case, to include how each defendant was in v o lve d , and to be as clear as possible so defendants could answer the allegations. F in a lly, the court warned that failure file a timely amended complaint might result in d is m is s a l of this action. P la in tiff has filed two documents since then, neither of which can be described a s an amended complaint. First, on May 17, 2010, he filed "Joint Motion to File A m icu s Brief on Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims." T h is document, which does not reference the complaint or indicate that it purports to be an amendment to the complaint, is less clear than the original pleading. It p ro vid e s in small part:

Dockets.Justia.com

I n t r o d u c tio n T h e First United Nation Congress 87 food procured provides within the lim its compatible with the good order of the institution, untried official(s) m a y , if they so desire, have their food procured at their own expense fro m the outside, either through the U.S. Administration or threw [sic] fa m ily or friends on military defenses. ... S ta te m e n t of Issues C o re Term: Discrimination, Freedom, Reproductive Health Right, O p e ra tio n of Kaczmarskip, Retaliatory, Treatment Restoration, D e m o n s tra tio n , Misconduct, Neglect, Misrepresentation, Uniform Act, IH O P , KFC, Pizza Hut, JJ Fish & Chicken, Menu, Rocki Ri Coco, China T o w n , Taco Bell, Catering Manager, Social Security Administration, W is c o n s in Forensic Unit, Complaint Corrections Examiner, Statutory F o rm u la , Madrid Agreement, Trust Account, Fraud, PLRA R e q u ire m e n t, Misconduct, ACLU, Brown County Corporal(s), Parties o f Litigation, National Guard Enforcement, Congress, Evidentiary, C e re m o n ia l, Pardon, U.S. Constitution, Inheritage. P r e s e n ta tio n for Indictment F e d . R. Crim. P. 12(c) and 17.1 I) The government gives notification to the Clerk of Court and Chief U .S . Assistant Attorney Mathew V. Richmond, of the Criminal Civil D ivis io n , for summonses or arrest warrants for the named defendants (F e d . R. Crim. P. 4). The case(s) is appropriate for a pretrial s c h e d u lin g conference to apply in ceremonial proceedings in the fe d e ra l courthouse and to be coercive on arraignment of certain a d m ira lty and maritime jurisdiction, the State of W is c o n s in Department o f Justice, released registrar pertinent to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3122, 3123 c o m p e llin g the attention of C/O Jesse Umentum, C/O Nathan Mathwig, C /O John Nickel, C/O W a y n e Apperman, C/O Travis Caul, C/O B e n ja m in Hilbert, C/O Robert Constein, Lt. Brian Greff, Det. Dan S tie m s m a , for witnesses and testimony, from issuance of administrative in s p e c tio n warrant relating to applicable law. (P l.'s Motion at 1-2.) -2-

S e c o n d , on June 18, 2010, plaintiff filed "Information to Grand Indictment C rim in a l L. R. 12.1" by which he "request[s] the court to bind under the First United N a tio n Congress 87 food procured for release breakfast/lunch/dinner." (Pl.'s

In fo rm a tio n at 1). This two-page document goes to describe certain restaurant food ite m s and then sets forth other undecipherable matters. F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires "a short and plain statement of the c la im showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and "[e]ach allegation must be s im p le , concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1). The purpose of this rule is to ensure that defendants and the court understand whether a valid claim is alleged a n d if so, what it is. Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 7 7 5 (7th Cir. 1994); Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003) (a c o m p la in t "suffices if it notifies the defendant of the principal events"). Under Rule 8 , a plaintiff must present a complaint with "clarity sufficient to avoid requiring a d is tric t court or opposing party to forever sift through its pages in search of what it is the plaintiff asserts." Vicom, 20 F.3d at 775 (quoting Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1 4 3 4 , 1436 (7th Cir. 1990)). D istric t courts may dismiss complaints that are confusing due to their length a n d lack of clarity, although leave to replead should ordinarily be granted. See L in d e ll v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003). Dismissal with prejudice is warranted if "the plaintiff has demonstrated [his] inability to file a lucid complaint." L o u b s e r v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.2006).

-3-

In this case, the court dismissed plaintiff's original complaint as unintelligible, g ra n te d him leave to replead, and provided guidelines for repleading to comply with R u le 8. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint but rather filed two

u n d e c ip h e ra b le documents. Plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to file a lucid c o m p la in t and, therefore, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to file amicus brief (Docket #8) be a n d the same is hereby DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby D IS M IS S E D with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1 9 1 5 A ( b )(1 ) as frivolous; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court document that this inmate h a s incurred a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). T h e Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 6th day of October, 2010. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-4-