Jones v. State of Wisconsin Division of Unemployment Insurance et al

Filing 5

ORDER directing petitioner to submit a second proposed amended complaint by 5/4/09. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/16/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------M O N T Y JONES, ORDER Petitioner, 0 9 - cv -1 4 9 - b b c v. S TA T E OF WISCONSIN DIVISION OF U N E M P L O Y M E N T INSURANCE and M E L IS S A MONTEY, R espo nd ent. --------------------------------------------O n March 16, 2009, petitioner Monty Jones filed a proposed complaint in which he bro ught various civil rights claims involving two different incidents and two respondents. D kt. #1. In an order entered on March 25, 2009, I concluded that petitioner's claims could n o t proceed in the same lawsuit under George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) an d Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Dkt. #3. On April 2, 2009, petitioner filed a proposed amended com plaint, dismissing respondent Melissa Montey and requesting leave to proceed against r e s p on den t State of Wisconsin Division of Unemployment Insurance on all of his claims. D kt. #4. Although the proposed amended complaint does not allege all of the facts alleged in the original complaint, it appears that petitioner intends to rely on facts contained in the

1

origin al proposed complaint in addition to the proposed amended complaint. Because respondent will be served with only the amended complaint, it will be difficult for it to have "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." EEOC v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). T herefore, I will stay the screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and ask that petitioner subm it a second proposed amended complaint that clearly sets forth the respondent(s), describes each claim and includes all of the allegations on which petitioner seeks to rely.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Monty Jones has until May 4, 2009, in which to su bm it a second proposed amended complaint in accordance with this order. If, by May 4, 20 09 , 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 16t h day of April, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

2