Wilson v. Milwaukee County

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/10/2018. By 5/21/2018, Plaintiff to FILE a Third Amended Complaint or this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Derrick Alan Wilson, Jr.)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DERRICK ALAN WILSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY,

Case No. 18-CV-241-JPS

ORDER

Defendant.
Plaintiff, Derrick Alan Wilson, Jr. (“Wilson”), proceeding pro se, filed
a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were
violated. (Docket #1). The Court screened Wilson’s original complaint on
February 28, 2018. (Docket #4). The Court identified numerous deficiencies
in the complaint and ordered Wilson to submit an amended complaint. Id.;
(Docket #6). Wilson submitted two amended complaints in rapid
succession, (Docket #8, #9), leaving the Court to screen the later-filed of the
two, (Docket #11 at 1).
In screening the second amended complaint, the Court explained
several lingering deficiencies in Wilson’s pleading. Id. at 5–7. The most
obvious error was that Wilson joined two sets of totally unrelated claims
against totally unrelated defendants. Id. at 6. The first set of claims was
asserted against officers of the Glendale Police Department (“GPD”), while
the second was asserted against correctional officers at the Milwaukee
House of Correction. Id. The Court explained that Wilson should submit a
third amended complaint and include either his set of claims against the
GPD or his set of claims against the House of Correction officers, but not
both. Id. at 7.

Wilson has filed a letter complaining that he wishes to pursue both
sets of claims but is not sure how to do so. (Docket #12). Although the Court
cannot act as his counsel, the Court advises Wilson that in order to pursue
both sets of claims, he should include one set of claims in this action and
file a new lawsuit asserting the other set of claims. For example, he could
include his allegations against the GPD in his third amended complaint in
this action, then file a new action in this Court asserting his claims against
the House of Correction officers. In the new action, he should remember to
file a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with his
complaint.
In its recent screening order, the Court gave Wilson until May 15,
2018 to file a third amended complaint. Because of Wilson’s confusion
regarding the Court’s directives, the Court will afford him one additional
week, or until May 21, 2018, to file a third amended complaint in this action.
If he does not, this case will be dismissed without further notice.
The third amended complaint must bear the docket number
assigned to this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.”
The third amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints and must be
complete in itself without reference to the prior complaints. See Duda v. Bd.
of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (7th
Cir. 1998). In Duda, the appellate court emphasized that in such instances,
the “prior pleading[s] [are] in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated
in the amended pleading[.]” Id. at 1057 (citation omitted). If a third
amended complaint is received, the Court will screen it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that on or before May 21, 2018, Plaintiff shall file a
third amended complaint curing the defects in the second amended
complaint as described herein and in the Court’s May 1, 2018 screening
order (Docket #11). Failure to timely file a third amended complaint will
result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Civ. L. R. 41(c).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3