Jones v. Assata HS et al

Filing 4

SCREENING ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 10/25/24 that Jones's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee 2 is DENIED without prejudice. If Jones wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, she must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed with the Court on or before November 25, 2024. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(jad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DRUSILLA A JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-1351-bhl

ASSATA HS, et al,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
SCREENING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
On October 22, 2024, Drusilla Jones, proceeding without an attorney, filed a complaint
against a host of defendants, including both public and private entities. 1 (ECF No. 1.) That same
day, she also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or in forma
pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2.) The Court has authority to allow a litigant to proceed IFP if it
determines that (1) the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action and (2) the
action is not frivolous, does not fail to state a claim, and is not brought against an immune
defendant. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2). The Court will consider each of these issues in turn.
THE MOVANT’S INDIGENCY

Jones has not provided any of the information necessary of the Court to consider her IFP
request. (ECF No. 2 at 1–4.) In response to questions on the IFP form about her employment, her
monthly income, and her monthly expenses, she responded either “N/A” or simply did not respond.
(Id. at 2–4.) She also attaches a “Bill of Costs” form that purports to show more than a hundred
million dollars in costs for a case that has only just been filed. (ECF No. 2-1.) The Court cannot
grant IFP without knowledge of Jones’s employment, income, and monthly expenses to determine
if she is unable to pay the costs of commencing this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2).

The Defendants are: Assata HS; Amtrust NA; Wesco Ins. Co.; LIRC Admin Agency; State of Wisconsin VI Division;
State of Wisconsin WC Division; Spine & Joint; Accident & Injury Rehab Center, Inc.; Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital
Ascension; David O. Goldbeck; Orthopedic Hospital of Wisconsin, LLC; the United States; DME MKE; ABC
Insurance Company; and ABC Manufacturer.

1

On this record, Jones has failed to submit information sufficient to grant IFP and her motion will
be denied.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
In screening a pro se complaint, the Court applies the liberal pleading standards embraced
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To survive screening, the complaint must comply with
the Federal Rules and state at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a
cognizable claim, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must be at least sufficient to
provide notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well as when and where
the alleged actions or inactions occurred, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the
actions or inactions caused.
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’
but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007)). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation
omitted). If the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, it must be dismissed. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1018 (7th
Cir. 2013).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Jones’s complaint is impossible to follow. It mainly consists of a series of short legal
phrases without any understandable explanation of the factual basis for her lawsuit. At best, it
appears Jones may have been injured at her desk while working for Assata High School on
September 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) But Jones does not explain what happened to her or what

role any of the many defendants she names had in her injuries. (Id.) Nor does she explain why
she thinks her injuries give rise to a federal claim. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
Jones’s allegations are insufficient to support a federal lawsuit. A complaint satisfies
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) when it provides a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and provides a defendant with “fair notice” of the
claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While pro
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers, Smith v. Dart, 803
F.3d 304, 309 (7th Cir. 2015), Jones must still plead facts sufficient to put each Defendant on
notice of any claims against it. She has not done so.
The only facts alleged are that, while Jones was at work, she was injured and notified her
employer of the injury. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The rest of the complaint is a laundry list of names,
entities, and legal claims. (Id.) It is unclear what happened to result in Jones’s injury, the extent
of her injury, and how the Defendants were involved.
Because Jones is acting without help from a lawyer, the Court will allow her the
opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this order. If she
decides to proceed with an amended complaint, Jones should draft her proposed amended
complaint as if she is telling a story to someone who knows nothing about his situation. This
means that she should explain: (1) what happened to make her believe she has a legal claim; (2)
when it happened; (3) who did it; (4) why; and (5) how the Court can assist her in relation to those
events. Jones should set forth her allegations in short and plain statements, focusing on the facts
of her case rather than abstract legal terms. She should ensure that her amended complaint can be
understood by someone who is not familiar with the facts of her case. And she should name as
defendants only those specific individuals who are involved with the facts of her case. Jones is
advised that her amended complaint must include the docket number assigned to this case and
must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint
and must be complete in itself, without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of
Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1998).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jones’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Jones wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, she must
file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed with the Court on or before
November 25, 2024. If the Court does not receive Jones’s amended complaint by that date, the
case will be dismissed for Jones’s failure to prosecute pursuant to Civil L. R. 41(c).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 25, 2024.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge