Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 11/22/2024. By 12/13/2024, Plaintiff to FILE a notice indicating whether he will obtain legal representation to attempt to proceed with this case as a putative class action or whether he will proceed pro se on behalf of only himself. Failure to timely do so will result in dismissal of this action. (cc: all counsel, via mail to William Louis Armstrong)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-CV-1389-JPS-JPS

v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE, CHAD
CRIVELLO, SERGIO TORRES, and
MILWAUKEE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong (“Plaintiff”), ostensibly “[i]n the
capacity of a representative plaintiff for a class,” sues Defendants City of
Milwaukee, Chad Crivello, Sergio Torres, and Milwaukee Police
Department for violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 4 He also moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
The Court will defer addressing Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and the process of screening his amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to address a threshold issue: Plaintiff’s
characterization of his case as a putative class action. See generally ECF No.
4 at 1–2 (referring to himself as a “representative plaintiff for a class” and
each defendant as a “representative defendant for a class”).
As the Court has informed him in another of his cases, see William
Louis Armstrong v. Boyland Auto BGMC LLC et al., No. 24-CV-765-JPS, ECF
No. 5 (E.D. Wis. July 3, 2024), Plaintiff cannot sue on behalf of a class while
proceeding pro se. Rutledge v. Lane, No. 98-1797, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS

11852, at *12 (7th Cir. May 25, 2000) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to let
pro se litigant risk the rights of others in class action)); Lawrence v. Sec’y of
State, 467 F. App’x 523, 525 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[The plaintiff] attempted to
bring a class action pro se, which was dismissed, because pro se plaintiffs
cannot represent others.” (citation omitted)). The Court has already put
Plaintiff on notice of this issue, so it is unclear why he again attempts to
proceed pro se in a putative class action. This may be a new case, but that
does not mean that Plaintiff can simply disregard all that which the Court
has already informed him in previous litigation. Jennings v. Principi, 114 F.
App’x 224, 226 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Pro se litigants do not have a general license
to disregard clearly communicated court orders.” (citing Downs v. Westphal,
78 F.3d 1252, 1257 (7th Cir. 1996))).
Plaintiff can either obtain legal representation to attempt to proceed
with this case as a putative class action, or he can choose to proceed pro se
on behalf of only himself—not as a representative of any putative class.
Plaintiff must inform the Court, by filing on the docket, on or before
December 13, 2024, which of these two options he intends to pursue. After
he makes that decision and informs the Court of having done so, the Court
will afford him additional time within which to either obtain counsel or file
a second amended complaint listing only himself as plaintiff and omitting
all references to purported class representatives. Failure to timely comply
with this Order will result in the dismissal without prejudice of this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong shall
inform the Court, by filing on the docket, on or before December 13, 2024,
whether he will obtain legal representation to attempt to proceed with this
Page 2 of 3

case as a putative class action, or whether he will proceed pro se on behalf
of only himself. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the
dismissal without prejudice of this case.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of November, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff will be required to 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
DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S
CHAMBERS. If mail is received directly to the Court’s chambers, IT WILL
BE RETURNED TO SENDER AND WILL NOT BE FILED IN THE CASE.
Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely file any brief, motion,
response, or reply 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. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED
ADDRESS TO THE COURT AND MAIL IS RETURNED TO THE
COURT AS UNDELIVERABLE, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THIS
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Page 3 of 3