Moore v. Atlanta, GA Police Department et al

Filing 19

ORDER that petitioner may have until March 16, 2009, to file a proposed amended complaint that complies with this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20. If petitioner does not respond by that date, the clerk of court is directed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B Crabb on 2/27/09. (vob),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------R O D N E Y C. MOORE, ORDER Petitioner, 0 9 -c v -2 3 -s lc 1 v. AT L AN T A GA POLICE DEPT.; C IT Y OF ATLANTA GA; Po lice Officer MICHAEL BUCKLEY; C olum bia Cty District Atty Former MARK BENNETT; COLUMBIA CTY; CITY OF SUN PRAIRIE; S U N PRAIRIE POLICE OFFICERS; FR AN K SMITH; MICHAEL BUCKLEY; S C O T T BARTNICK; KEVIN KONOPACKI; R IC H IE STILES-RIDDLE; NOVAK;JOHNSON; D E PT OF CORRECTIONS P.O. AGENTS; FR AN S IC O SALAS; SUSAN BENDER; D A N E CTY SHERRIFFS DEPT. AND DEPUTY'S; C O RY MORRISARD; DENNIS LINDHOLM; D AN E CTY HUMAN SERVICES AND STAFF M E M B ER S; KATHRYN PENNINGROTH; S H EL IA HANSON; D AN E CTY MENTAL HEALTH AND STAFF; D R . KIM NESTLER; LIANE NAKAMURA; D AN E CTY, STATE OF WISCONSIN; A D A GRETCHEN HAYWARD; W IS C . RESOURCE CENTER;

Because consents to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction have not yet been filed by all the parties to this action, I am assuming jurisdiction over the case for the purpose of this o r d er .

1

T IM ZIGLER; JEREMY WRIGHT; TOM SPEECH; and City of Sun Prairie Police Dept. Det. FRANK, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------In an order dated January 26, 2009, I reviewed petitioner's complaint and concluded th at most of his claims were barred by Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), and H e c k v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because he was challenging the validity of his con finem ent, something he must do in the context of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. I dismissed the remainder of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 because petitioner failed to give respondents notice of any claims he may have been asserting about his conditions of con finem ent. I gave petitioner an opportunity to file an amended complaint that omitted claim s challenging his confinement and that complied with Rule 8. Since that order, the court has received eight separate filings from petitioner, none of which is identified as an amended complaint or even as a response to the court's January 26 order. Dkt. ## 11-18. Two of these filings have captions, but nearly all of them include allegations about past or present conditions of confinement. The two captioned documents invo lve different respondents and different events. One is about a failure to provide proper m edication, the other is about a failure to prevent an assault. As I told petitioner in the January 26 order, Rule 20 prohibits a plaintiff from asserting unrelated claims against 2

different defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit. I will give petitioner one more chance to file an amended complaint that complies w ith Rule 8 and Rule 20, if he wishes to do so. Any amended complaint he files must have the words "proposed amended complaint" written across the top and it must include the fo llo w i ng information: (1) a caption, listing this court's name (United States District Court for the Western D istrict of Wisconsin), the case number (09-cv-23-slc) and each of the parties he wishes to sue; (2) a short and plain statement of his claim, describing the facts that form the basis fo r his claim, each respondent's involvement in the alleged violation of petitioner's rights and the injury petitioner suffered; (3) a request for relief (as I have told petitioner before, he may not seek release from p riso n ); and (4) petitioner's signature. Petitione r may file only one amended complaint in the context of this case. If he w ishes to pursue different claims against different respondents, he will have to file a new law suit and pay a separate filing fee.

ORDER 3

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner may have until March 16, 2009, to file a proposed am ended complaint that complies with this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20. If petitioner do es not respond by that date, the clerk of court is directed to close the case. E n tered this 27t h day of February, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

4