Nicholas v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/2/2015 GRANTING the 3 Motion for leave to file an amended complaint, SETTING A DEADLINE for the plaintiff to file the amended complaint, and INSTRUCTING the plaintiff on compliance with Civil Local Rule 15. (by US Mail to the plaintiff)(pwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CLARENCE P. NICHOLAS

Case No. 15-cv-345-pp

Plaintiff,
v.
MILWAUKEE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
and MILWAUKEE TEACHERS’ EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S RULE 15 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 3), SETTING A DEADLINE FOR
THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND INSTRUCTING
THE PLAINTIFF ON COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 15
_____________________________________________________________________________
On March 30, 2015, plaintiff Clarence P. Nicholas—representing
himself—filed a complaint against the Milwaukee Board of School Directors.
Dkt. No. 1. In Section III of the complaint, entitled “Statement of Claim,” the
plaintiff attached an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
Complaint, signed by him and dated December 30, 2014. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5.
That document named the Milwaukee Public School Board of Directors and the
Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association as defendants. Id. at 3. It alleged
that these two organizations engaged in a pattern or practice of employment
discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. In
Section IV of the March 30, 2015 complaint, where he stated the relief
requested, the plaintiff asked for $1,000,000 from “Milwaukee Board of School

1

Directors” and $1,000,000 from “Cornerstone Achievement Academy, Inc.” Id.
at 6.
The plaintiff attached to the complaint the charge he filed with the
EEOC, his EEOC intake form, and a December 30, 2014 letter from the EEOC
investigator. Dkt. No. 1-2. The charge and intake forms named the Milwaukee
Public Schools as the alleged discriminating organization. Id. at 2, 4. The letter
from the investigator told the plaintiff that the investigator was going to
recommend dismissal of the plaintiff’s EEOC complaint. Id. at 1. It stated that
if the investigator’s supervisor agreed with that dismissal recommendation, the
EEOC would issue a dismissal, along with a document called a Notice of Right
to Sue. Id. Although the plaintiff attached a number of other exhibits to his
March 30 complaint, those documents did not include the Notice of Right to
Sue.
On June 2, 2015, the court ordered that by June 30, 2015, the plaintiff
must file an amended complaint, along with the Notice of Right to Sue (if he’d
received one). Dkt. No. 2. In the order, the court explicitly required the plaintiff
to file an amended complaint, and required that the amended complaint clearly
name, in the caption, all of the parties he was suing, using the correct
organizational names. Id. at 3.
On June 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Civil
Procedure 15 Amendment and Motion.” Dkt. No. 3. The document included a
Notice of Right to Sue dated January 5, 2015. Id. at 3-4. The Notice of Right to
Sue included a “cc:” to the Milwaukee Public School District. Id. at 3. In the
2

body of the June 30 “Amendment and Motion,” the plaintiff alleged that “the
Milwaukee Public School Board of Directors and the Milwaukee Teachers’
Education Association” committed the discriminatory acts against him. Id. at 1.
He attempts to “further amend[]” the complaint to seek $1,000,000 from the
Milwaukee School Board of Directors and $1,000,000 from the Milwaukee
School Teachers’ Education Association. Id.
The court finds that the plaintiff has filed the Notice of Right to Sue as
required. Therefore, the plaintiff has satisfied that requirement for proceeding
with his lawsuit. He has not, however, complied with the rest of the court’s
June 2 order.
The court first notes that the court ordered the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. The document he filed on June 30—despite the fact that it
has the word “amendment” in the title—is not an amended complaint. It is a
motion, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, asking for permission to file an amended
complaint. The plaintiff didn’t need to file a request for permission to amend
the complaint—the court had ordered him to do it.
Second, this motion does not comply with the requirements of the Civil
Local Rules for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Civil Local Rule 15 requires a
party to “reproduce the entire pleading as amended.” Civil L. R. 15(a). The
plaintiff “may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Id. The plaintiff
also “must state specifically what changes are sought by the proposed
amendments.” Civil L. R. 15(b). “The proposed amended pleading must be filed
as an attachment to the motion to amend.” Id. So—what the local rules require
3

is that the plaintiff re-type, or re-write, his complaint, and file that separately
from his motion. The reason for this is because eventually, if the court accepts
the plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court will ask the marshals to serve that
amended complaint on the defendants, and the defendants will use that
amended complaint to determine how to defend themselves.
Because the plaintiff represents himself, he probably was not aware of
this rule. Accordingly, the court is going to interpret his June 30 motion as a
motion asking for permission to file an amended complaint, and the court will
grant the motion. The court will, at the end of this order, give the plaintiff a
deadline by which to file an amended complaint—a full complaint, on the form
the court is going to provide.
Second, the “Civil Procedure 15 Amendment and Motion” still does not
clarify which organization(s) the plaintiff seeks to sue. Does he seek to sue the
Milwaukee Public School District (the entity named in his EEOC papers)? The
Milwaukee School Board of Directors? The Milwaukee School Teachers’
Education Association? Cornerstone Achievement Academy? All four? Or a
combination of these entities? This is another reason that the court ordered the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and to put in the caption of the
complaint the names of all of the entities he was trying to sue. The plaintiff
must include in his amended complaint the contact information for each entity
he is suing. He also must explain briefly in the “statement of claim” portion of
the complaint what he believes each of the defendant entities did to violate the
law.
4

The court also notes that in his June 30 motion, the plaintiff spent
almost a page of quotations about the law he thinks applies in his case. The
complaint is not the place to include long legal discussions—if the court needs
information about cases and statutes, the court will give the parties an
opportunity to provide that information at a later time. The important
information to put in the complaint is the “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and,
if the plaintiff knows it, “why”—the facts about who did something to him, what
they did, when they did it, where they did it and, if he knows, why they did it.
With this order, the court is enclosing a packet of information entitled
“Guide to Filing Complaints Without a Lawyer in Federal District Court.” This
guide explains how to file a complaint that the court and the defendants can
effectively consider. The court urges the plaintiff to take the advice and the tips
in this packet into account when he writes and files his amended complaint.
If the plaintiff files the amended complaint by the deadline below, and
provides the address information for the defendants he names in the caption
of the complaint, the court will ask the United States Marshals Service to serve
the complaint on those entities. If the plaintiff does not file the required
documents and information, the court will dismiss the complaint without
prejudice.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint and
ORDERS the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, complying with the
conditions described above, by the end of the day on Friday, August 14, 2015.
If the plaintiff does not file the amended complaint with the required
5

information by that date, the court will dismiss the complaint without
prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, this 2nd day of July, 2015.

6