Castellano v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge J. P. Stadtmueller on 12/2/2016. 11 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint STRICKEN. Plaintiff to file second amended complaint on or before 12/23/2016 which contains only related claims in accordance with this Order; if plaintiff does not file amended complaint by deadline, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (cc: all counsel, via mail to John Castellano and Warden at Racine Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOHN J. CASTELLANO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1248-JPS

JENNIFER SPOTTS and REBECCA
MAHIN,

ORDER
Defendants.
On November 3, 2016, the Court screened the plaintiff’s initial
complaint. (Docket #10). The Court found that the plaintiff had improperly
attempted to include unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Id. at 4-5.
The Court struck the complaint and required the plaintiff to offer an
amended complaint to continue this action. Id. at 5. On November 17, 2016,
the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint. (Docket #11).
As noted in its November 3, 2016 order, the Court is required to screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See (Docket #10 at 1); 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if
the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The same standards cited in the original screening order apply here. (Docket
#10 at 1-3).
Though the amended complaint eliminated most of the defendants
and claims from the plaintiff’s original complaint, it suffers similar
deficiencies. The plaintiff contends that Jennifer Spotts (“Spotts”), a treatment
provider for sex offenders at Racine Correctional Institution, and Rebecca

Mahin (“Mahin”), a probation officer, violated a litany of his rights. (Docket
#11 at 4-9). Even with only these two defendants in play, the plaintiff’s claims
against each are almost entirely unrelated. His claims against Spotts are
related to her May 18, 2011 “Sex Offender Program Report,” which appears
to be a report on the plaintiff’s participation in Racine’s sex offender
treatment program. (Docket #11 at 4-6; #1-1 at 106-110). Mahin’s alleged
transgressions range include forcing the plaintiff to put his initials on a form,
making him wear a GPS monitor, interfering with his HIV/AIDS medication
by having him taken into custody for parole violations, preventing him from
accessing the Internet, and denying him use of medical marijuana. (Docket
#11 at 6-8). These claims apparently arose from June 2013 to January 2014.
The only claim that even mentions both together is one stating that
Mahin, “in collusion with Defendant Spotts denied the Plaintiff his equal
protection . . . by conspiring with Spotts to have his Parole revoked[.]”
(Docket #11 at 8). The plaintiff references Mahin’s November 18, 2013
Revocation Summary report, wherein she recommended that he be
reincarcerated due to various parole violations. (Docket #1-1 at 162-72). These
allegations are conclusory and the report itself makes no suggestion of any
communication between Mahin and Spotts at all, much less a conspiracy. As
currently pleaded, the claim is not viable.
As with the original complaint, the plaintiff brings unrelated claims
against multiple defendants in a single case. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18(a) and 20 do not permit this. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007). The Court must, therefore, strike the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
(Docket #11). The plaintiff will be afforded one final opportunity to amend
his complaint before the Court dismisses this action. As the Court instructed
on November 3, 2016, only properly related claims must be presented, and
Page 2 of 4

any unrelated claim not pursued in this case must be brought in a separate
action. The plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be received on or
before December 23, 2016.
As before, an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and
must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See
Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 105657 (7th Cir. 1998). With respect to the plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the
Court indulged his request to reference his 321-page compilation of exhibits
which had been filed with the original complaint. (Docket #11 at 2). It will not
do so again with the second amended complaint. If the plaintiff wishes to
reference any exhibits, they must be included with the new complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the amended complaint submitted on
November 17, 2016 (Docket #11) be and the same is hereby STRICKEN;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to file a
second amended complaint on or before December 23, 2016, which contains
only related claims in accordance with this Order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the plaintiff does not file an
amended complaint by December 23, 2016, that complies with the
requirements of Rules 18 and 20, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action
will be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be sent to the
warden of the institution where the inmate is confined.

Page 3 of 4

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

s/ J. P. Stadtmueller
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4