Murphy v. Hartman et al.

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/19/2018. 10 Plaintiff's motion to dismiss case GRANTED. 14 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time DENIED as moot. Case DISMISSED without prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Shawn Murphy at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
SHAWN MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-584-pp

CARLA HARTMAN,
now known as CARLA CLOVER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 10),
DENYING AS MOOT THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(DKT. NO. 14), AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Shawn Murphy is a Wisconsin state prisoner representing
himself. On August 27, 2018, court screened his complaint and allowed the
plaintiff to proceed on a claim that defendant Carla Hartman denied him
access to the courts when she allegedly suspended his ability to obtain legal
loans for thirty days, which prevented him from timely filing a petition to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, and then subsequently denied him a legal loan.
Dkt. No. 9 at 6. The court determined that the plaintiff had not stated claims
for relief against the other defendants named in the complaint and dismissed
them. Id. at 6-7. Since then, the plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the
entire case because the court did not allow him to proceed against four other
individuals named in the complaint. Dkt. No. 10. The court did not rule on that
motion right away. As a result, about seven weeks after the plaintiff filed the
motion, the defendant filed an answer. Dkt. No. 14. The plaintiff responded by
filing a motion asking about the status of his motion to dismiss and asking the
court to give him more time to figure out what to do about the answer. Dkt. No.
14.
1

The court did not allow the plaintiff to proceed on a claim against
defendant Muenchow because the plaintiff alleged only that Muenchow ruled
on an administrative grievance after the alleged violation took place. Dkt. No. 9
at 6-7. The court did not let the plaintiff proceed against defendants Helmer,
Wilson and Kamphuis because he did not allege that they had personal
involvement in the alleged violation. Id. at 7.
In his motion to dismiss, the plaintiff reiterates his belief that these
defendants did violate his rights. Dkt. No. 10 at 1-4. He does not argue that the
court’s screening order erroneously dismissed the four former defendants.
Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint and the screening
order, and it would not reinstate any of the defendants. Thus, to the extent
that the plaintiff wants the court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the four
defendants, the court would deny his request.
The plaintiff asks to dismiss the case because he sees no point in
continuing if the court will not let him proceed against all five of the defendants
he originally sued. Dkt. No. 10. That is his decision and his choice. The court
will grant this request and dismiss the case without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a).
In the plaintiff’s request for status of his motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
reiterates that prison staff have violated his constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 14
at 1. He also states that the court did not understand his complaint because
his impairments impede his ability to be understood. Id. at 2. The court
believes that it understood the plaintiff’s complaint, and it understands why he
believes that Muenchow, Helmer, Wilson and Kamphuis should be liable for
what happened to him. The court dismissed those defendants because the law
does not provide for liability under the circumstances the plaintiff has
2

described. The plaintiff disagrees; he feels that defendants like these should be
liable. The court understands, but it is required to follow the law.
The plaintiff does not have to respond to the defendant’s answer. Even
though the plaintiff has stated a claim against defendant Hartman (now
Clover), he has told the court that he does not want to proceed against her
unless he also can proceed against the four prison officials the court dismissed
at screening. The plaintiff cannot proceed against those individuals. So,
because the court is granting the plaintiff’s request to dismiss his case against
Clover, he does not need to do anything further.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case. Dkt. No.
10.
The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s motion for extension for time.
Dkt. No. 14.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of November, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3