Stewart, Glendale v. Moody, Reginald et al

Filing 11

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's complaint for his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/20/2012. (jef),(ps)

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

GLENDALE STEWART,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-338":bbc
v.

REGINALD MOODY,
MADISON AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE/MADISON COLLEGE
(OFFICIALS AND STAFF MEMBERS),
RICHARD RICE, FOX & FOX,
CAPITAL NEWSPAPERS, INC. and
CAPITAL TIMES NEWSPAPERS,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Glendale Stewart has filed a proposed amended 'complaint in an
attempt to address his original complaint's deficiencies as identified by the court in an order
dated June 19,2012. I dismissed his racial harassment claim under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against defendant Reginald Moody becau$e plaintiff failed
to allege any facts suggesting that Moody's conduct was "severe or pervasiye" or motivated
by plaintiff's race, as required to prevail on those claims. Trentadue v. Reidmon, 619 F.3d
I

648,652 (7th Cir. 2010); Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F;3d 200,206 (3d
Cir. 200 I). I dismissed his retaliation claim under the same statutes against defendant
Madison Area Technical College because he offered nothing more thaI) conclusions to
support a belief that he did not receive an internship and was delayed entry into his classes

because of any protected conduct.

In particular, he did "not identi+ the individuals

involved in the decisions, why he believes that either decision was made in tetaliation for any
speech that he made or even whether the decision makers knew about his 'speech." Finally,
I dismissed his claims against defendants Richard Rice, Fox & Fox, Capital Newspapers, Inc.
and Capital Times Newspapers because he did not include any allegations about them in the
body of his complaint.
Like his original complaint, plaintiff's amended complaint does not include a
narrative or any factual context. Instead, plaintiff simply lists in 67 numbered, often
repetitive paragraphs various ways he believes employees at the college "r¢taliated" against
him and "harassed" him. Although he adds many alleged instances of retaliation and he
made some attempt to identify the decision makers involved, he still alleges no facts
suggesting that any harassment by defendant Moody was severe or pervasive, that Moody's
actions were motivated by plaintiff's race or that anyone at the college took any action
against plaintiff because he complained about race discrimination or

e~gaged

in speech

protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, my conclusion regarding plaintiff's original
complaint applies equally to his amended complaint: "Without any factual context for this
claim, the 'complaint fails to show that it is at all plausible, rather than perHaps theoretically
possible' that defendant[s] violated his rights."

i

Dkt. #9 at 4 (quotipg Abcarian v.

McDonald, 617 F.3d 931, 937-38 (7th Cir. 2010). In other words, becaiuse plaintiff has
failed to "give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to pre$ent a story that
holds together," Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cit. 2010), he has

2

•
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff adds four new defendants in his amended complaiJnt: Robert Half
Technologies, V.W.DoIT, First Choice and Clayton Frink. The first three!seem to be places
plaintiff sought employment unsuccessfully. He says that he believes

tha~

they rejected his

applications because other defendants "influenced" the prospective emplpyers not to hire
plaintiff as a result of complaints that he made with the college. Even if 1 assume that any
of these entities could be held liable under § 1983 or Title VI, these claims fail because they
are dependent on plaintiff's faulty claims against the college. Plaintiffs only allegation
against Frink is that he "colluded" with defendant Rice and the college "to help destroy
plaintiff['s] livelihood by attacking his grade point average and attempting to get plaintiff
to go off the deep end." Dkt. # 10 at ,-r 62. Plaintiff does not identify who Frink is, the
particular acts by Frink that allegedly violated plaintiff's rights or why he belfeves Frink acted
unlawfully.

Accordingly, I am dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and

directing the clerk of court to enter judgment.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Glendale Stewart's complaint is DISMISSED for his
!

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk of co*t is directed to
enter judgment in favor of defendants Reginald Moody, Madison Area Te<:hnical College,
Richard Rice, Fox & Fox S.c., Clayton Frink, Capital Times Newspapers, Capital
Newspapers, Inc., Robert Half Technologies, V.W. DolT and First Choice Dental and close

3

•
this case.
Entered this 20th day of August, 2012.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4