McWashington v. Jansen et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 9/26/2017: GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee; DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Add Party; DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Co rrect Complaint; ORDERING Plaintiff to file an Amended Pleading by 10/17/2017; and DIRECTING agency having custody of Plaintiff to COLLECT balance of filing fee from Plaintiff's institution trust account in accordance with this Order. See Order for further details. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Rudy E. McWashington and Jail Administrator at Brown County Jail) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RUDY E. MCWASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRADLEY J. JANSEN, WENDY
LEMKE, and BRYANT DORSEY,
Case No. 17-CV-492-JPS
ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff Rudy E. McWashington, who is incarcerated at Brown
County Jail, proceeds in this matter pro se. He filed a complaint alleging that
the defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Docket #1). This matter
comes before the court on Plaintiff’s petition to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee (in forma pauperis). (Docket #2). Plaintiff has
been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $58.91. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1).
The court shall screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental
entity. 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.
Id. § 1915A(b).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900
(7th Cir. 1997). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where
it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. “Malicious,”
although sometimes treated as a synonym for “frivolous,” “is more usefully
construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 110910 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system,
the plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It is not
necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his statement need only
“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, a complaint that
offers mere “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state a claim, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint’s allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
In considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should
follow the principles set forth in Twombly by first, “identifying pleadings
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Legal conclusions must be
Page 2 of 5
supported by factual allegations. Id. If there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, the court must, second, “assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a plaintiff
must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was visited upon him
by a person or persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore v.
County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Village
of North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The court is obliged to give the plaintiff’s
pro se allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” a liberal construction. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)).
Plaintiff’s complaint presents claims leveled against both the public
defender and prosecutors assigned to his criminal case in Brown County.
(Docket #1). Since the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff has offered motions
to amend or supplement his pleading. (Docket #7 and #8). Piecemeal
amendments to a pleading are not permitted; Plaintiff’s complaint must
contain all of the defendants, and the claims alleged against them, in one
complete document. The motions will be denied.
The Court will permit Plaintiff the opportunity to correct these
deficiencies in his pleading. If he chooses to offer an amended complaint,
Plaintiff must do so no later than October 17, 2017. The amended complaint
supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without
reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Board of Educ. of Franklin Park
Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1998). In Duda, the
Seventh Circuit emphasized that in such instances, the “prior pleading is in
Page 3 of 5
effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the amended pleading[.]”
Id. at 1057 (citation omitted); see also Pintado v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency,
501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended
pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is
abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader’s
averments against his adversary.’”) (quoting Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner
Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th
Cir. 2006)). If an amended complaint is received, it will be screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee (in forma pauperis) (Docket #2) be and the same
is hereby GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before October 17, 2017,
Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading curing the defects in the original
complaint as described herein;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for leave to
amend the complaint (Docket #7 and #8) be and the same are hereby
DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of
Plaintiff shall collect from his institution trust account the balance of the
filing fee by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prison trust
account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income
credited to Plaintiff’s trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk
of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the
case name and number assigned to this action. If Plaintiff is transferred to
Page 4 of 5
another institution, county, state, or federal, the transferring institution
shall forward a copy of this Order along with Plaintiff’s remaining balance
to the receiving institution;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be sent to the
officer in charge of the agency where Plaintiff is confined; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit all
correspondence and legal material to:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE
COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will only delay the processing of the matter.
Plaintiff is further advised that failure to make a timely submission
may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. In
addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of
address. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not
being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?