Brown v. Does

Filing 99

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 2/25/2019. 78 Defendants' motion to dismiss unrelated claims GRANTED; plaintiff may not proceed on amended complaint because it violates FRCP 18, 20. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, he mus t file second amended complaint by 4/12/2019 related only to Claim 1 from his amended complaint. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with Claims 2-6 from his amended complaint, he must file separate new complaints by 4/12/2019 following instructions in th is order. 77 Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery DENIED. 90 Plaintiff's motion for issuance and service of subpoena DENIED without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Ennis Brown at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility-with copies of 6 prisoner complaint forms, plaintiff's amended complaint, the court's screening order, plaintiff's motion to substitute names) (cb)

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

Case No. 16-cv-241-pp

CAPTAIN GARTH-DICKENS; LT. REAVES;
LT. BRIGGS; LT. MONTANO;
LT. ANDRYKOWKSI; LT. ARTUS;
CO SCHERRER; DEPUTY MCCOY;
DEPUTY SCHROEDER; SGT. SAWCZUK;
NURSE PRACTITIONER DOE; DR. JANE DOE;
NURSE VICKIE; MALINDA, Social Worker Doe,
CO WILBORN; JOHN DOES, sued as Deputy John Does 1-4;
MAJOR AMBROSE; NURSE BRENDA 1;
NURSE BRENDA 2; SARA, Social Worker Doe;
CO MIZDKIAK; CO HUBBER; CO YANG;
CO WEBB; CO HANNAH; CO RUIZ;
CO MERCADO; CO BRIGGS; AND CO STEPHEN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT.
NO. 77), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS UNRELATED
CLAIMS (DKT. NO. 78) AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF SUBPOENA (DKT. NO. 90)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Ennis Lee Brown, who is incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility, filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights when he was confined at the Milwaukee
County Jail. Dkt. No. 10. The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery,
dkt. No. 77, and a motion for issuance and service of subpoena, dkt. no. 90.
The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss unrelated claims. Dkt. No. 78.
The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel, deny without prejudice the
1

plaintiff’s motion for issuance and service of subpoena, and grant the
defendants’ motion to dismiss unrelated claims. As explained below, the court
will give the plaintiff a deadline of Friday, April 12, 2019 by which to (1) file a
second amended complaint in this case, containing only the claims he alleged
in claim #1 of his amended complaint (page 2 of that amended complaint), and
(2) file separate, new complaints (new cases) raising the allegations he raised in
claims 2-6 of the amended complaint.
I.

Procedural Background
In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants

violated his constitutional rights while he was confined at the Milwaukee
County Jail. Dkt. No. 10. The court screened the amended complaint and
allowed the plaintiff to proceed on claims based on six separate incidents.
Specifically, the court
allow[ed] the plaintiff to proceed on the following constitutional
claims: (1) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and Eighth
Amendment failure to provide medical care claims against CO
Hannah and three John Doe COs, based on the February 6, 2013,
incident; (2) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Nurse Practitioner Jane Doe and Dr. Jane Doe for
continuing to prescribe harmful medication to the plaintiff between
November 2012 and June or July 2013; (3) Fourteenth Amendment
excessive force claim against Deputy Schroeder and Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference/failure to provide medical care
claim against Deputy McCoy, Sgt. Sawczuk and Deputy John Does
#1, #2, #3, and #4, related to the March 29, 2013, stun gun incident;
(4) Fourteenth Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claims, based on being placed in
segregation without a hearing and the conditions in segregation,
against Major Jane Doe, Sgt. Sawczuk, Lt. Finkley and Deputy John
Doe #1; (5) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3, Lt. Reeves, Capt. Garth Dixon, Lt. Artison
and CO Scherer based on the July 30, 2013, suicide attempt; and
(6) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference/medical care claim
2

against CO John Doe #6, CO John Doe #7, CO John Doe #8, Lt.
Reeves, Lt. Briggs, Lt. Finley, Lt. Montoya, Lt. Anderkowski, Lt.
Artison, Nurse Jane Doe #3, Nurse Jane Doe #4, Nurse Jane Doe
#5, Nurse Jane Doe #6, CO #6, CO #7, CO #8, CO #9, CO #10 and
CO #11 based on the plaintiff’s face and MRSA.
Dkt. No. 11 at 8.
On October 28, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Dkt. No. 33. The brief in support of the motion argued that the plaintiff had not
exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the federal lawsuit, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Dkt. No. 34 at 1. The plaintiff filed
an opposition brief on November 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 41. That same day, the
defendants amended their motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 43. On November 29,
2016, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to add parties (allowing him to
substitute actual names for the Doe defendants) and stayed further
proceedings on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims until it could resolve the
exhaustion issue. Dkt. No. 48.
On March 30, 2018, the court denied the defendants’ amended motion to
dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1 Dkt. No. 75 at 14-17.
The court found that the parties dispute whether the plaintiff exhausted
available administrative remedies because they do not agree whether the
plaintiff knew about the jail’s grievance procedure, and when. Id. at 14. The
court found that the parties also dispute whether the plaintiff attempted to
exhaust the remedies that were available to him regarding Claim 1, Claim 3,
The court treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment because the
defendants submitted, and the court considered, matters outside the four
corners of the complaint. Dkt. No. 75 at 8-10.
1

3

Claim 4 and Claim 5. Id. at 15. Regarding Claims 2 and 6, the court noted that
it appeared the parties disputed whether the jail’s grievance procedure applied
to these medical care claims. Id. at 16. Nonetheless, the court determined that
it could not tell on this record whether the plaintiff had failed to exhaust those
claims because there was a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff knew of
the grievance procedure at the time his medical clams arose. Id. The court
concluded:
In short, the genuine factual disputes over whether the
plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies preclude the
court from granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Seventh
Circuit has held that where there are questions of fact regarding
whether a petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, a court
should conduct a hearing on exhaustion, and permit any discovery
it deems appropriate regarding the exhaustion issue. Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). The case should proceed
to a determination on the merits only if the court determines that
the petitioner has properly exhausted his administrative remedies,
or that the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust was not his fault. Id. If the
plaintiff has not exhausted his remedies, and the failure was
innocent, the court may give him another chance to exhaust. Id. If
the court determines that the plaintiff was at fault for his failure to
exhaust, “the case is over.” Id. If there comes a point where the court
concludes that the plaintiff has exhausted his remedies, “the case
will proceed to pretrial discovery, and if necessary a trial, on the
merits . . . .” Id.
Dkt. No. 75 at 16-17.
After denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss
claims against individuals that the plaintiff did not list in the caption of his
amended complaint. Id. at 17. Then the court turned to the issue of joinder.
The court stated that, while it should have caught this issue at the
screening stage, the amended complaint might violate the joinder rule in
4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The court gave the parties an opportunity to
file briefs regarding the joinder issue—specifically, whether the plaintiff’s six
claims, which arose out of six different incidents on different dates involving
different alleged violations, violated Rule 20. Dkt. No. 75 at 18. The court
stated that after the parties briefed the question of whether the amended
complaint violated Rule 20, it would decide whether to allow the plaintiff to
proceed on the amended complaint as it was, to require him to amend it to
address only certain claims or to dismiss parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Dkt.
No. 75 at 19. The court also stated that once the court had settled the Rule 20
issue, it would decide whether to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the
exhaustion issue, and when. Dkt. No. 75 at 19.
On May 7, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on
misjoinder of parties. Dkt. No. 78. The parties have fully briefed this issue and
the court addresses the motion below. In addition to the defendants’ motion,
the plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery, dkt. no. 77, and a request
for issuance and service of a subpoena, dkt. No. 90. The court also addresses
these motions in this order.
II.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Unrelated Claims and Parties (Dkt.
No. 78)
After the court issued its order directing briefing on the issue of

misjoinder of parties, and before the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
unrelated claims and parties, the plaintiff filed an “Addendum.” Dkt. No. 76. In
his Addendum, the plaintiff states that the Milwaukee County Jail illegally
detained him during the claims presented in this case. Id. at 1. According to
5

the plaintiff, the Milwaukee County Jail did not have the “authority” to legally
detain him at the Milwaukee Correctional Facility in section/unit 4-D and, as a
result, his claims are “part of a continuous act which I was falsely imprisoned
and suffered some of the most horrific treatment and abuse.” Id.
Defendants Andrykowski, Artus, Briggs, Garth-Dickens, McCoy,
Montano, Reaves, Sawczuk, Scherrer and Schroeder (Corrections Defendants)
filed a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s misjoinder of unrelated claims
and parties. Dkt. No. 78. They contend that the multi-claim, multi-defendant
nature of the plaintiff’s amended complaint violates Rule 20 and should be
dismissed. Dkt. No. 79 at 4. The Corrections Defendants state that the plaintiff
has not made the necessary connections or established any nexus between his
multiple claims sufficient to satisfy the “transaction” or “occurrence”
requirements of Rule 20, nor are the defendants sufficiently connected to each
other to satisfy the requirements of Rule 18. Id. The Corrections Defendants
request that the court “take such action necessary to effectuate the limits of
proper joinder of claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 and 20, requiring plaintiff to
separate his unrelated claims into independent lawsuits subject to screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” Dkt. No. 79 at 8. They contend that the court also
should deny the plaintiff’s motion to add more claims/parties through his
“Addendum.” Id.
Defendants NP Jane Doe, Dr. Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2-3 and Nurse Jane
Does 3-6 (Medical Defendants) filed a separate brief in which they also argue
that the plaintiff’s amended complaint violates Rule 20. Dkt. No. 81 at 1.
6

Plaintiff embraced, and the Court initially allowed, this
“scattershot” strategy, throwing all his claims into one stewpot.
Importantly, Plaintiff fails to assert a claim involving a question of
fact common to all defendants. Plaintiff also fails to assert a claim
based on a transaction or series of transactions in which all
defendants were involved. There is no showing that all defendants
participated in the same transaction or series of transactions. While
Plaintiff alleges a “series of occurrences,” neither the factual nor
legal analysis of the six incidents are the same.
Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
different suits to prevent prisoners from dodging the fee payment or
three strikes provisions in the PLRA. The Court should order Plaintiff
to choose one of his six claims to pursue under this filing. The Court
should also require Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint
pleading only the facts and naming only the defendants allegedly
involved in that one claim. If Plaintiff wants to pursue separate
lawsuits for his other five claims, the Court should instruct him to
file new, separate complaints for each individual claim.
Dkt. No. 81 at 6-7.
The plaintiff’s response argues that the “joinder of parties and claims
have a commonality, in which they are all part of a ‘transaction’ and
‘occurrence’ of repetitive acts that stem from the policies and acts of
‘Milwaukee County Agencies’ or the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Depart.” Dkt.
No. 89 at 1. He states that his claims stem from a “continuing violation” of his
rights and that they are properly joined on that basis. Id. at 2-3.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a), “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits” to prevent prisoners from dodging
the fee payment or three strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “A party asserting a claim,
counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or
alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R.
7

Civ. P. 18(a). Under this rule, “multiple claims against a single party are fine,
but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B
against Defendant 2.” George, 507 F.3d at 607. Moreover, joinder of multiple
defendants into one case is proper only if “any right to relief is asserted against
them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
The plaintiff has tried to combine six claims involving about forty
defendants into one case. The six claims stem from separate incidents, which
occurred on separate dates, and do not involve the same defendants. The six
claims do not arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences. The fact that the plaintiff was allegedly illegally
confined during the relevant time does not allow him to sue the defendants in a
single case because the plaintiff’s right to relief does not stem from the alleged
illegal confinement.
In George, the Seventh Circuit instructed district courts that such
“buckshot complaints” should be “rejected.” George, 507 F.3d at 607. This was
the state of the law when the court originally screened the plaintiff’s amended
complaint. The court regrets that it did not catch this issue then; it should
have. After reviewing the parties’ pleadings on the joinder issue, the court
concludes that the plaintiff cannot proceed on all these claims in the same
case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for
8

dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on
just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a
party.”). The court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss unrelated
claims.
There is no specific procedure for dividing up a single case into separate
cases after a finding of misjoinder of parties. See McDowell v. Morgan Stanley
& Co., Inc., 645 F. Supp. 2d 690, 697 (N.D. Ill. 2009). The court will order that
if the plaintiff wants to proceed, he must file a second amended complaint in
this case raising only the first claim on which the court’s June 30, 2016
screening order allowed him to proceed—that is, his “Fourteenth Amendment
excessive force and Eighth Amendment failure to provide medical care claims
against CO Hannah and three John Doe CO’s, based on the February 6, 2013,
incident.” Dkt. No. 11 at 8; see also #5 at page 5 of the amended complaint.
The court will order that if he wants to pursue the other five claims on which
the court allowed him to proceed, he must open new cases by filing new
complaints related to each of the other five claims, as explained in detail below.
The plaintiff will not have to pay a filing fee for any new complaint he files
regarding Claims 2-6.2 The court will screen the second amended complaint,
Since the plaintiff filed this case, he has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g), which ordinarily would mean that in any new case he files, he cannot
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See Brown v. Hicks, et al., Case No. 16-1622
(7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) (imposing two “strikes,” one for filing a frivolous
complaint and a second for filing the appeal); Brown v. Wis. State Public
Defender’s Office, et al., 854 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2017) (imposing two strikes);
Brown v. Kamphuis, et al., Case No. 17-cv-142-pp (E.D. Wis.) (dismissing for
failure to state a claim on July 16, 2018). Because the plaintiff filed this case
2

9

and any new complaint the plaintiff files regarding the other five claims, under
28 U.S.C. §1915A.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 77) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Issuance of a Subpoena (Dkt. No. 90)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff asks the court to compel the

defendants to provide him with “any and all documents that allowed the
Milwaukee County Sheriff Dept. to Detain Plaintiff from July 27, 2012 through
October 28, 2013 for the case of 2012-cf-03796 or any case, court order, parole
violation, warrant, of any Jurisdiction and or county or State in the
Continental United States.” Dkt. No. 77 at 2. The plaintiff states that he
previously tried to obtain these documents from the defendants, and he was
either ignored or denied access to the documents. Id. at 1.
The court stayed discovery on the merits until after it could resolve the
defendants’ motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds. Dkt. No. 48 at 7. The
court did not lift the discovery stay when it resolved the defendants’ motion to
dismiss because in that order it gave the parties the opportunity to file briefs
on whether the amended complaint violated the joinder rule. In addition, the
court has not yet determined which claims the plaintiff may proceed on in this
case (and it won’t be able to until he files his second amended complaint). It is
premature for the court to allow discovery at this point. The court will deny the
plaintiff’s motion to compel.

raising these six claims before he struck out, however, the court will not apply
§1915(g) to any new case he files regarding Claims 2-6. It will apply §1915(g) to
any new cases that do not involve Claims 2-6 from this case.
10

The plaintiff also filed a request for service of a subpoena. Dkt. No. 90.
The court has not yet ruled on this request because the court had stayed
discovery. The court will deny the plaintiff’s request without prejudice; he may
refile it in the appropriate case, once he has filed the complaint, the court has
screened the complaint and the court has issued a scheduling order.
IV.

Conclusion
The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss unrelated claims.

Dkt. No. 78. The plaintiff may not proceed on his amended complaint because
the amended complaint violates Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The court ORDERS that if the plaintiff wants to proceed, he must file
separate complaints for each of his six claims. The plaintiff may raise
allegations related to Claims 1-6, as follows:
(1) The plaintiff may file a second amended complaint in this case
related to the allegations in the first claim on which the court
allowed him to proceed—#5 at page 5 of his June 8, 2016
amended complaint, the Fourteenth Amendment excessive force
and Eighth Amendment failure to provide medical care claims
against CO Hannah and three John Doe CO’s,3 based on the
February 6, 2013 incident. The plaintiff’s second amended
complaint must be filed on the court’s form complaint in
time for the court to receive it by the end of the day on
FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2019. The plaintiff must write the words
“Second Amended” at the top of the first page, next to the
word “Complaint.”
On October 18, 2016, the court received from the plaintiff a request to
substitute the real names of certain Doe defendants. Dkt. No. 28. On page 3 of
that motion, he listed names for ten correctional officer “Doe” defendants. Id. at
3. He identified CO Doe #4 as Hannah, whom he already has named in the
claim described above. The court does not know which of the other correctional
officers were the three officers involved in the February 6, 2013 incident. The
plaintiff can make that clear in his second amended complaint.
3

11

(2) The plaintiff may file a new complaint in a new case related to
the allegations in the second claim on which the court allowed
him to proceed—#20 at page 8 of his June 8, 2016 amended
complaint, the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Nurse Practitioner Jane Doe and Dr. Jane Doe4 for
continuing to prescribe harmful medication to the plaintiff
between November 2012 and June or July 2013. The plaintiff’s
new complaint must be filed on the court’s form complaint
in time for the court to receive it by the end of the day on
FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2019 and must include a cover letter
stating that “the plaintiff is filing a new case from Claim 2
in Case 16-cv-241.”
(3) The plaintiff may file a new complaint in a new case related to
the third claim on which the court allowed him to proceed—#9 at
page 6 of his June 8, 2016 amended complaint, the Fourteenth
Amendment excessive force claim against Deputy Schroeder and
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference/failure to provide
medical care claim against Deputy McCoy, Sgt. Sawczuk and
Deputy John Does #1, #2, #3 and #45, related to the March 29,
2013 stun gun incident. The plaintiff’s new complaint must be
filed on the court’s form complaint in time for the court to
receive it by the end of the day on FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2019
and must include a cover letter stating that “the plaintiff is
filing a new case from Claim 3 in Case 16-cv-241.”
(4) The plaintiff may file a new complaint in a new case related to
the fourth claim on which the court allowed him to proceed—#11
at page 6 of his June 8, 2016 amended complaint, the Fourteenth
Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim, based on being placed in segregation without
a hearing and the conditions in segregation, against Major John

It does not appear that the plaintiff identified the nurse practitioner involved
in this incident in his October 18, 2016 motion to substitute real names for
Doe defendants. Dkt. No. 28. He asked for the court’s assistance in obtaining
the name of the Jane Doe doctor. Id. at 4. If the plaintiff has not yet figured out
the name of that Jane Doe doctor, he may use the discovery process in the new
case to obtain her name.
5
The court cannot tell whether the plaintiff has identified the four John Doe
deputies he referenced in this part of the complaint. His October 18, 2016
motion to substitute real names lists the names of ten correctional officer John
Does, but does not mention the names of any John Doe deputies.
4

12

Doe,6 Sgt. Sawczuk, Lt. Finkley, and Deputy John Doe #1. The
plaintiff’s new complaint must be filed on the court’s form
complaint in time for the court to receive it by the end of
the day on FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2019 and must include a cover
letter stating that “the plaintiff is filing a new case from
Claim 4 in Case 16-cv-241.”
(5) The plaintiff may file a new complaint in a new case related to
the fifth claim on which the court allowed him to proceed—##1317 of his June 8, 2016 amended complaint, the Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Malinda
(formerly Jane Doe #2), Sara (formerly Jane Doe #3), Lt. Reeves,
Capt. Garth Dixon, Lt. Artison and CO Scherer based on the July
30, 2013 suicide attempt. The plaintiff’s new complaint must
be filed on the court’s form complaint in time for the court
to receive it by the end of the day on FRIDAY, APRIL 12,
2019 and must include a cover letter stating that “the
plaintiff is filing a new case from Claim 5 in Case 16-cv-241.”
(6) The plaintiff may file a new complaint in a new case related to
the sixth claim on which the court allowed him to proceed—#21
of his June 8, 2016 amended complaint, the Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference/medical care claim that CO Hubber
(formerly CO John Doe #6), CO Yang (formerly John Doe #7), CO
Ruiz (formerly John Doe #8), Lt. Reeves, Lt. Briggs, Lt. Finley, Lt.
Montoya, Lt. Anderkowski, Lt. Artison, and Nurse Jane Does 367 acted with deliberate indifference in treating the plaintiff’s
swelling face and MRSA. The plaintiff’s new complaint must
be filed on the court’s form complaint in time for the court
to receive it by the end of the day on FRIDAY, APRIL 12,
2019 and must include a cover letter stating that “the
plaintiff is filing a new case from Claim 6 in Case 16-cv-241.”

It is not clear whether the plaintiff has identified the John Doe major involved
in this claim. In his motion to substitute parties, he stated that as to “claim
#12,” someone named “Major Ambrose” ordered him to be kept in segregation
after March 29, 2013, dkt. no. 28 at 4, but it is not clear if this is the same
major who was involved in the fourth claim. It does not appear the plaintiff has
identified the John Doe deputy from this claim.
7
The plaintiff identified three Jane Doe nurses in his motion to substitute
names—Nurse Vicki, Nurse Brenda and Nurse Brenda. Dkt. No. 28 at 2. It is
not clear if these are the names of the nurses involved in the sixth claim, or if
they were Doe nurses in some other claims.
6

13

The court is enclosing with this order six prisoner complaint forms, as
well as a copy of the plaintiff’s June 8, 2016 amended complaint, the court’s
June 30, 2016 screening order and the plaintiff’s October 18, 2016 motion to
substitute names.
The court ORDERS that if the plaintiff files a second amended complaint
or a new complaint in compliance with this order, the court will screen those
complaints under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The court will not allow the plaintiff to
proceed on any new claims that he did not raise in Claims 1-6 as described
above.
The court ORDERS that if the plaintiff files the new complaints raising
the allegations in Claims 2-6 in time for the court to receive them by the end of
the day on Friday, April 12, 2019, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s threestrikes provision, 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), will not bar the plaintiff from proceeding
without prepayment of the filing fee.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 77.
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s motion for
issuance and service of subpoena. Dkt. No. 90
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 25th day of February, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

14