Semons v. Vance et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on 6/19/2014 DENYING 39 41 Plaintiff's Motions to Amend the Complaint. (cc: all counsel, mailed to plaintiff) (djd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
FLOYD L. SEMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-CV-994

JIEIRE A. VANCE and BEVERLY WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Floyd Semons has filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Lieutenant Gold as a
party (Docket # 39). He asserts that Lieutenant Gold, who is a “grievance responder” for the
Milwaukee County Jail, did not turn in all of the grievances he filed related to his claim in this
case and related to other issues. According to Semons, Lieutenant Gold’s failure to submit the
grievances violated Semons’ First Amendment rights and Jail procedure. However, Semons did
not file a proposed amended complaint along with this motion. See Civil L.R. 15(a) (E.D. Wis.)
(“Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to
amend, must reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior
pleading by reference.”). In addition, I note that “[p]rison grievance procedures are not
mandated by the First Amendment and do not by their very existence create interests protected
by the Due Process Clause, and the alleged mishandling of [ ] grievances by persons who
otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v.
Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007)). Based on the foregoing, Semons’ motion to amend will be denied.

Semons has also filed a separate document titled motion to amend complaint and add
defendants, although this motion refers to his first motion and is not actually a separate motion
to amend (Docket # 41). Rather, Semons asks if the defendants are required to respond to the
motion to amend, appears to make a settlement offer, and seeks to place this case on hold if the
defendants do not agree to his settlement offer. He also asks that this case be placed on hold
while he looks for an attorney.
It is not clear whether the defendants will agree to Semons’ settlement offer. The parties
should advise the Court if they have agreed to settle the case. Additionally, I will not stay the
case while Semons looks for an attorney. As stated in the Court’s prior order denying his request
for pro bono counsel, this case is not overly complex and Semons’ filings demonstrate significant
comprehension of the proceedings and knowledge of the legal issues involved. (See Court’s
Order of December 17, 2013, at 1-2.) Accordingly, Semons’ motion will be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the
complaint (Docket # 39) be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint
(Docket # 41) be and hereby is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Nancy Joseph
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

2