Recla, Roy S. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 13

ORDER severing case. Petitioner to submit an amended complaint in this case re: retaliation by 6/30/09. Court to open a separate case when petitioner submits a proposed complaint re: deliberate indifference to medical needs. Respondents Federal Bureau of Prisons, Reed, Dr. Stewart F. Taylor, Jr., Torres and Carr dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/5/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------R O Y S. RECLA, OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, 0 9 - cv -1 0 1 - b b c v. FED E R AL BUREAU OF PRISONS, M R . MARTINEZ, MS. HOLINKA, M R . ROBINSON, DR. REED, DR. S T EW A RT F. TAYLOR, JR., MR. T O R R ES and MR. CARR, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------P etitio n er Roy S. Recla has brought as many as four different lawsuits involving several claims, different incidents and different sets of respondents. In an order entered Ap ril 9, 2009, I concluded that petitioner's claims could not proceed in the same lawsuit under George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and that th e proposed complaint failed to make clear what role certain respondents had in each event and what conduct petitioner was challenging in each lawsuit. I advised petitioner that he w o u ld have to choose which of the separate lawsuits he wanted to pursue under this case nu m ber. The four lawsuits are as follows:

1

1.

R e sp o nd en ts Federal Bureau of Prisons, Martinez, Holinka, Robinson, R eed, Torres and Carr acted negligently in exercising their duty under 18 U.S.C. § 4042 by placing petitioner in segregation and taking away his pain medication when he arrived at the institution and after he refused to work on his hands and knees. R espo nd ents Holinka, Robinson, Reed, Torres, Carr and Taylor acted w ith deliberate indifference in failing to treat and accommodate petitio ner's right knee and lower back conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. C ertain respondents violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to p ro cedural due process and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal pro tection by committing unspecified conduct. R espo nd e n t Robinson retaliated against petitioner by placing him in segregatio n after he refused to work on his knees. (This claim possibly cou ld be included in the same lawsuit as #1 or #2).

2.

3.

4.

In his response, petitioner appears to have deleted respondent Federal Bureau of Prisons, Reed, Taylor, Torres and Carr and added several new respondents. He states that h e wishes to proceed in this action on a claim that respondents Unit Manager Robinson, Form er Warden Martinez and Warden Holinka retaliated against him at the Federal C orr ection al Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin. Dkt. #11. Also, he states that he wants to proceed in a separate action on a deliberate indifference claim against the following: 1) the Fe deral Correctional Institution­Oxford; 2) Oxford employees Former Warden Martinez, W ard en Holinka, Clinical Director Doe, Doctor Doe and Health Services Administrator D oe; 3) the Federal Correctional Institution­Elkton; and 4) Elkton employees Former

2

W arden T. Sniezak, Warden J.T. Shartle and Assistant Health Services Administrator T. B arn es. Although petitioner has corrected his Rule 20 problems by identifying one lawsuit to p ursu e in this action, he has not included all of the relevant facts supporting his retaliation claim in one document, as required under Rule 8. He states only that "this will be a retaliation case." Dkt. #11 at 3. As explained in the court's previous order, petitioner must d escrib e in a new proposed complaint how respondents Martinez, Holinka and Robinson each retaliated against him and what specific grievance(s) or complaint(s) that he filed that alleged ly led to the retaliation. Therefore, I will stay the screening process in this action u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and ask that petitioner submit a second proposed amended com plaint that clearly sets forth the respondents, describes his retaliation claim and includes all of the factual allegations on which he seeks to rely. Petitioner's deliberate indifference claims will be treated as a separate action and assign ed a new case number after petitioner submits a separate proposed complaint setting fo rth the respondents, his deliberate indifference claims and all of the factual allegations on w hi ch he seeks to rely. Before this court may decide whether petitioner can proceed with th e second lawsuit, he will have to make an initial partial payment of the filing fee. In a p revio us order, I calculated that amount to be $37.92. Dkt. #3. Petitioner's remaining law suits will be dismissed without prejudice.

3

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. This action is SEVERED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. In case no. 09-cv10 1-bb c, I will consider petitioner Roy Recla's claim that respondents Unit Manager R o b in so n , Former Warden Martinez and Warden Holinka retaliated against him. In a se p a r a te case to be opened only upon petitioner's filing of a proposed complaint, I will consider petitioner's claims that respondents Federal Correctional Institution­Oxford, Fo rm er Oxford Warden Martinez, Oxford Warden Holinka, Oxford Clinical Director Doe, O xford Doctor Doe, Oxford Health Services Administrator Doe, Federal Correctional In stitu tio n ­E lk to n , Former Elkton Warden T. Sniezak, Elkton Warden J.T. Shartle and Elkton Assistant Health Services Administrator T. Barnes acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. 2. Respondents Federal Bureau of Prisons, Reed, Dr. Stewart F. Taylor, Jr., Torres and Carr are DISMISSED. 3 . Petitioner has until June 30, 2009, in which to submit a proposed amended co m p lain t in this action, case no. 09-cv-101-bbc, in accordance with this order. If, by June

4

30 , 2009, petitioner fails to respond to this order, the clerk of court is directed to close this case for petitioner's failure to prosecute. Entered this 5t h day of June, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

5