Brown v. Does

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 3/26/2019 DENYING 100 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and STRIKING 101 plaintiff's proposed amended complaint. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Ennis Brown at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ENNIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-241-pp

CAPTAIN GARTH-DICKENS, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT.
NO. 100) AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 101)
_____________________________________________________________________________
On February 25, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss unrelated claims from this case and determined that the plaintiff could
not proceed on his amended complaint because it violated Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 18 and 20. Dkt. No. 99 at 1. The court ordered that if the
plaintiff wanted to proceed, he needed to file separate complaints for each of
his six claims. Id. Specifically, the court ordered that by April 12, 2019, the
plaintiff should file a second amended complaint in this case related to Claim
1 from his amended complaint and that he should file separate new
complaints for each of Claims 2 through 6. Id. at 11-14. The plaintiff has filed
a motion for review, dkt. no. 100, and a proposed second amended complaint,
dkt. no. 101.
In his motion for review, the plaintiff states that he believes the court
erred when it decided that his claims were misjoined. Dkt. No. 100 at 1. The

1

plaintiff points to a complaint that he filed on December 5, 2016 that he says
would have corrected the issue of misjoinder, and added new claims and
defendants along with the names of John and Jane Does. Id. According to the
plaintiff, in the motion to amend that accompanied the amended complaint he
supplied “a common [sic] he set forth to name the Correctional Officers and the
Supervisor which instructed and ordered the detainment in the segregation
area of the jail. To include ‘several’ motion claims, which connected the entire
set of events through the direction of the superiors, David Clarke, Nancy
Evans, and Milwaukee County.” Id. The plaintiff says that he filed another
motion to amend on October 8, 2017, and that the court ruled that it would
address the plaintiff’s request to amend once it resolved the issue of exhaustion
of administrative remedies. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff states that after resolving
the exhaustion issue in his favor, instead of considering his requests to amend
the complaint, it “ruled 20” and ordered him to file six separate complaints. Id.
at 2. He states that the court did not allow him to correct the complaint before
the decision. Id. The plaintiff points to the original screening order, which
allowed the claims that arose at the Milwaukee County Jail to proceed in the
same complaint. Id.
The plaintiff states that the claims presented in this case “is and was
part of the ‘conditions’ and ‘treatment’ the plaintiff had experienced at the
hands of the Defendants, while held at MCCJF.” Id. at 3. He contends that the
court’s order to separate the claims “appears to separate the rights of the pro
se and indigent plaintiff at this point.” Id. According to the plaintiff, the
2

“separation comes as to, ‘the court not allowing him the same rights of a none
[sic] confined, knowledgeable person of the Law, who is not indigent (In form
pauperis), with counsel, not convicted of a sex crime, suing the State of
Wisconsin or its agents or entities of Governments in said state.” Id. The
plaintiff asks the court to review the record and its ruling to correct the error
and ensure that he is treated equally and justly as the law and Constitution
demand. Id. at 4.
The plaintiff also has filed a proposed second amended complaint. Dkt.
No. 101. In the accompanying cover letter, the plaintiff states that “the issues
of relevancy and occurrence has been corrected to add the issue of ‘Misjoinder’
resolved in the new complaint.” Dkt. No. 101-1. The proposed second amended
complaint reiterates the plaintiff’s six claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows any order adjudicating fewer
than all the claims to be revised at any time before the entry of judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
Courts judge motions to reconsider (or to revise) an order under Rule 54(b) by
largely the same standards as motions to alter or amend a judgment under
Rule 59(e): “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246,
251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656,
665-66 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984) (citation and
footnote omitted)), amended by, 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1987); compare Moro v.

3

Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.1996) (providing nearly identical
standard for motion under Rule 59(e)).
The plaintiff has not shown that the court’s February 25, 2019 order
constituted a manifest error of law or fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions,
the plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint contains separate claims
that belong in separate cases. The fact that the claims arose at the Milwaukee
County Jail does not mean that the belong in the same case. The court
acknowledges that its 2016 screening order allowed the plaintiff to proceed on
the claims; it acknowledged that fact in its February 25, 2019 order, when it
conceded that it should not have permitted the claims to proceed in the same
case. Dkt. No. 100 at 5-10. Rather than just dismissing the case, the court has
given the plaintiff the opportunity to file his claims correctly.
The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion for review and it will strike the
plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint. The plaintiff still has the
opportunity to file a single, second amended complaint, addressing the facts
surrounding Claim 1, by April 12, 2019.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 100
The court STRIKES the plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint.
Dkt. No. 101
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 26th day of March, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
4