AUSTIN, CLARENCE v. DANE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH

Filing 5

Order denying Plaintiff's motions to reopen cases 08-cv-00652-bbc; 08-cv-00280-bbc; 09-cv-00244-bbc; 08-cv-00180-bbc; 07-cv-00192-bbc. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/6/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------C LA R EN C E AUSTIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 7 - cv -1 9 2 - b b c v. D A N E COUNTY MENTAL H EALT H , D efendan t. --------------------------------------------C LA R EN C E ANTONIO AUSTIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -1 8 0 - b b c v. D A N E COUNTY JAIL and W IS C O N S IN PENAL SYSTEM, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------C LA R EN C E A. AUSTIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -2 8 0 - b b c v.

1

D AN E COUNTY JAIL, DODGE CORRECTION FA C IL IT Y, OAK HILL CORRECTION FACILITY, RESOURCE CENTER an d MADISON POLICE DEPARTMENT, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------C LA R EN C E AUSTIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -6 5 2 - b b c v. D A N E COUNTY JAIL, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------C LA R EN C E ANTONIO AUSTIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 09-cv-244-bbc v. S P EE D W A Y GAS STATION and W A L -M A R T , D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------O ver the last three years, plaintiff has filed the five cases listed above. The first four invo lved plaintiff's treatment while he was incarcerated at the Dane County jail. I dismissed

2

each of these either because plaintiff did not raise allegations against the named defendant or because he sued facilities such as the Dane County jail, which are not "persons" that may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In plaintiff's fifth lawsuit, case no. 09-cv-244-bbc, he attem pted to sue defendants Speedway Gas Station and Wal-Mart for discriminating against him because of his race. I dismissed his complaint because his vague allegations violated F ed eral Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and gave him a chance to submit an amended complaint w ith additional detail. When plaintiff did not submit an amended complaint by the

deadline for doing so, the case was closed. N ow plaintiff has filed a motion in each of the five cases seeking to reopen them. H o w e ver, he provides no reasons why the motions should be granted. Instead, his motions con sist of vague statements that at best repeat his desire to reopen the cases and at worst, vaguely threaten the court. In any case, there is simply no reason why these cases should be reop ened. In each of plaintiff's first four actions, he failed to include allegations against n am ed defendants capable of being sued. As for plaintiff's fifth case, there would be no po int to reopening the case because plaintiff has failed to submit an amended complaint in accorda nce with my previous order in that case. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to reopen

3

each of these cases are DENIED. E n tered this 6th day of May, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

4