London v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al
Filing
29
ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/29/2019. Case DISMISSED under 28 USC §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because complaint was malicious and plaintiff did not follow Judge Duffin's order to file complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Clerk of Court to document that plaintiff has incurred "strike" under 28 USC §1915(g). (cc: all counsel, via mail to Keith London c/o his state probation officer)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KEITH LONDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-889-pp
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM DUFFIN’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 28) AND DISMISSING THE CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
On June 12, 2018, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the
defendants violated his civil rights, dkt. no. 1; he filed an amended complaint a
couple of months later, dkt. no. 10. The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to
this case because the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his complaint.
That law requires courts to screen a complaint filed by an incarcerated plaintiff
to determine whether the plaintiff he has stated any claims for which a federal
court can grant relief.
On November 16, 2018, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
William Duffin for all pretrial matters. Dkt. No. 25. Five days later, on
November 21, 2018, Judge Duffin screened the plaintiff’s amended complaint
and concluded that he had filed the amended complaint to harass the
defendants and/or the court.1 Dkt. No. 26 at 8. Judge Duffin gave the plaintiff
Judge Duffin noted that the plaintiff has filed numerous cases in this district.
Dkt. No. 26 at 8. The plaintiff’s amended complaint consists of twenty-six,
1
1
an opportunity to file a second amended complaint by December 21, 2018, but
he warned the plaintiff that if he did not file a second amended complaint—one
that complied with Judge Duffin’s order—by the deadline, Judge Duffin would
recommend that this court dismiss the plaintiff’s case and assess him a strike
under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Id.
The plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint by December 21,
2018, so on January 2, 2019, Judge Duffin did what he had warned the
plaintiff he would do—he recommended that this court dismiss the plaintiff’s
case and assess him a strike because his amended complaint was malicious.
Dkt. No. 28. In his order, Judge Duffin informed the plaintiff that he had
fourteen days to object to the recommendation (in other words, the plaintiff
needed to object by January 16, 2019 or thereabout). Id. The court has not
received an objection. The court is aware that the plaintiff was released on
extended supervision on January 9, 2019, but that was seven days after Judge
Duffin issued his recommendation, and six weeks after Judge Duffin ordered
single-spaced pages in which the plaintiff purports to name “The Entire State of
Wisconsin” as defendants. Dkt. No. 10 at 5. It discuses health care providers,
the failure of the State Public Defender to have handicap-accessible offices, the
fact that the Milwaukee County Courthouse and the sheriff’s department do
not have handicap-accessible bathrooms. It alleges that a state court judge
retaliated against him. It alleges that his First Amendment religious rights were
violated by jails and hospitals. It complains about jail food. It claims that his
flesh was rotting and smelled. It alleges HIPPA violations. Judge Duffin
concluded that the fact that the plaintiff filed a complaint that violated several
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when he is an experienced litigant,
demonstrated that he had filed the complaint for malicious reasons. Dkt. No.
26 at 8.
2
him to file an amended complaint. (See https://appsdoc.wi.gov/lop/detail.do,
last checked January 22, 2019.)
The court agrees with Judge Duffin’s analysis of the plaintiff’s amended
complaint, and will adopt his recommendation. The court incorporates Judge
Duffin’s conclusions and the reasoning supporting those conclusions in this
order.
The court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED under 28
U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because the plaintiff’s amended
complaint was malicious, and because the plaintiff failed to follow Judge
Duffin’s order to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court ORDERS that the Clerk of Court shall document that the
plaintiff has incurred a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 29th day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
3
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?