Wood v. Billings et al
Filing
101
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/27/2016 STRIKING 93 Proposed Amended Complaint filed by Lorenzo Wood, Jr.. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Lorenzo Wood at Racine Correctional Institution)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LORENZO WOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 13-CV-281
PATRICIA BILLINGS and
SUE NEIL,
Defendants.
ORDER
On December 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed a proposed amended
complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the plaintiff
may not amend his complaint at this stage of the proceedings without first
obtaining the Court’s leave. The plaintiff did not obtain the Court’s leave
to file an amended complaint. The Court also notes that the plaintiff failed
to follow Civil Local Rule 15(b), which requires a plaintiff to “state
specifically what changes are sought by the proposed amendments.” Based
on the plaintiff’s failure to follow these rules, the Court will strike the
plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint.
Even if the plaintiff had sought the Court’s leave, it is doubtful that
the Court would have permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Based on the Court’s cursory review of the plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint, it appears that he desires to add Guardian Health Staff, LLC,
and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections as defendants.
The Court reminds the plaintiff that § 1983 makes individuals and
entities liable only for their own misdeeds, not for anyone else’s. Burns v.
Fenoglio, 525 Fed. Appx. 512, 515 (7th Cir. 2013).
In other words, a
plaintiff cannot state a claim based on vicarious liability or merely because
an entity employs or supervises a particular individual. Further, only in
very limited circumstances will the allegation of “failure to train” support
§ 1983 liability. Erwin v. County of Manitowoc, 872 F.2d 1292, 1297 (7th
Cir. 1989). To state a claim, the improper or inadequate training must
actually cause the injury complained of; it must itself demonstrate
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. Id. at
1297-98. The Court cautions the plaintiff to consider these observations as
he decides whether to seek the Court’s leave to file an amended complaint.
IT IS ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint (ECF No. 93) is STRICKEN.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 27th day of January, 2016
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?