Alexander, Robert v. Svec, Marie et al

Filing 13

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 7 request to add defendant Warden William Pollard; denying 8 Motion to Transfer to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Amended Complaint due 10/16/2012. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 9/25/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ROBERT E. ALEXANDER,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-cv-808-slc1
v.
MARIE SVEC (WCI Social Worker),
RON WILLIAMS (WCI Social Worker) and
DARRELL ALDRICH (WCI Social Services Supervisor/Director),
Defendants.

In this proposed civil action for monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief, plaintiff,
a prisoner at the Waupun Correctional Institution in Waupun, Wisconsin, contends that
defendants Marie Svec, Ron Williams and Darrell Aldrich violated his rights under the First,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by committing unspecified acts relating to his visitation
with his adult daughter. Plaintiff is proceeding under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 and has made an initial partial payment.
Because plaintiff Robert Alexander is a prisoner, I am required by the 1996 Prison
Litigation Reform Act to screen his complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations of
the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

1

I am exercising jurisdiction over this case for the purpose of this order.

Here, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice because Alexander failed to
include sufficient facts -- and really any -- to show that he is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This means that "the complaint must
describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant 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).
In his proposed complaint, Alexander merely refers to an existing case in this court
and an inmate complaint that he filed regarding his visitation rights with his adult daughter.
He does not explain what happened, when it occurred or what actions each of the defendants
took that violated his visitation rights with his daughter or anyone else. Although Alexander
may have an ongoing case with similar facts, each lawsuit must have its own independent
and operative pleading. If the operative pleading consists of multiple documents in separate
lawsuits, the scope of the plaintiff’s claims in different cases blur and it becomes difficult,
if not impossible, for the defendants to file an answer. To avoid ambiguity, the complaint
in each case must be self-contained.
Because Alexander’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8, it will be dismissed it
without prejudice. He is free to file an amended complaint that fixes these problems, but
an amended complaint must contain short and plain statements of fact made in numbered
paragraphs, explaining what happened to make him believe his rights were violated, when
it happened and who did it. In other words, Alexander should write his complaint as if he

2

is telling a story to someone who knows nothing about his situation. He should take care
to identify the actions taken by each individual that he claims violated his rights and should
list each such individual as a defendant.
In a letter dated January 1, 2012, plaintiff requested that Warden William Pollard
be added as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Dkt. #7.) Because the court is dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint, that request is moot.

If plaintiff chooses to submit a proposed amended

complaint correcting the Rule 8 deficiencies, he may add Warden Pollard as a defendant
provided he also includes specific allegations detailing the warden’s personal involvement in
the alleged wrongdoing.
As a final matter, I note that on June 11, 2012, Alexander filed what could be
construed as a motion to transfer his case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Milwaukee. (See dkt. #8 at 3.) Plaintiff argues that because all of the issues raised in this
lawsuit occurred in Dodge County, the Eastern District is the proper venue. Because
plaintiff has not submitted a viable complaint, however, defendants have not yet had an
opportunity to appear. Therefore, entertaining a motion to transfer would be premature.
Plaintiff may, of course, choose to dismiss this lawsuit voluntarily and file a new lawsuit in
the Eastern District. However, plaintiff would still have to pay the remainder of the filing
fee in this lawsuit, as well as a separate filing fee in the Eastern District.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Robert Alexander’s request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action is DENIED and his complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

3

2.

Plaintiff may have until October 16, 2012, to submit a proposed
amended complaint. If plaintiff fails to respond by that date, then the
clerk of court is directed to close this case for petitioner's failure to
prosecute. If plaintiff submits a revised complaint by that date, the
court will take that complaint under advisement for screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3.

Plaintiff’s request to add Warden William Pollard as a defendant (dkt.
#7) is DENIED as moot.

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to transfer his case to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Milwaukee (dkt. #8) is DENIED.

Entered this 25th day of September, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
______________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4