Scott v. Rodriquez et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/4/2017 DENYING as unnecessary 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Demetric Scott at Waupun Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DEMETRIC SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-140-pp

MEGAN RODRIQUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING AS UNNECESSARY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO AMEND
COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 22)
______________________________________________________________________________
In his June 19, 2017 order screening the plaintiff’s amended complaint,
Judge J.P. Stadtmueller discussed the plaintiff’s official capacity claims against
some of the defendants. See Dkt. No. 18 at 6. In that discussion, Judge
Stadtmueller noted that a plaintiff could obtain only injunctive relief (not
monetary damages) for official capacity claims, and pointed out that the
plaintiff had made a specific request only for monetary damages (not injunctive
relief). Id.
On July 19, 2017, the court received from the plaintiff a motion seeking
leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 22. The plaintiff appears to believe
that when Judge Stadtmueller noted that the plaintiff “only specifically asked
for money damages,” Judge Stadtmueller was trying to tell him that the court
did not know how much money he was seeking. He asks for leave to amend the
complaint to show that he is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages

1

and monetary damages “each separately in the amount of $250,000.” Dkt. No.
22 at 2.
The plaintiff’s amended complaint did state the specific amount of money
he wanted as damages. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. He asked for $200,000 in
compensatory damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, and $200,000 in
“monetary” damages. Id. The motion for leave to amend, however, indicates
that the plaintiff now seeks “compensatory damages, punitive damages, and
monetary damages each separately in the amount of $250,000.” Dkt. No. 22 at
2.
The court will consider the plaintiff’s motion as a supplement to his
complaint. There is no need for the plaintiff to file another amended complaint.
The court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended
complaint (dkt. no. 22) is DENIED as unnecessary.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

2