Smith, Derrick v. Dickman, Robert et al
Filing
32
ORDER denying plaintiff's request for leave to proceed and dismissing his 1 complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Amended Complaint due 12/23/2013. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/22/2013. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DERRICK L. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
12-cv-741-wmc
ROBERT DICKMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
State inmate Derrick L. Smith has filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Marathon County Jail. He has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and he has paid an initial, partial filing
fee as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Because he is incarcerated, the PLRA requires the court to screen the 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 generously, reviewing them under “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). Even under this
very lenient standard, Smith‟s request for leave to proceed must be denied for reasons set
forth below.
FACTS
For purposes of this order, the court accepts all well-pled allegations as true and
assumes the following probative facts.1
The plaintiff, Derrick L. Smith, has a lengthy criminal record of convictions from
Marathon County, Wisconsin, dating back to at least 1996. Smith turned himself in to the
Marathon County Jail on June 5, 2012, after he was charged with several felony offenses in
Marathon County Case No. 2012CF386.2 Smith was also charged with violating the terms
of his probation or parole. Following the revocation of his parole and return to state prison
in October 2012, Smith was transferred from the Marathon County Jail to the Dodge
Correctional Institution (“DCI”) of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (“WDOC”).
In February 2013, Smith was assigned to the Columbia Correctional Institution (“CCI”). On
August 6, 2013, Smith was released from state prison on extended supervision. Because a
detainer was pending against him, Smith returned to custody at the Marathon County Jail,
where he is currently awaiting trial in Case No. 2012CF386.
In this case, Smith has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following
individuals employed at the Marathon County Jail: Administrator Bob Dickman; Supervisor
Deb Gleason; Physician‟s Assistant Melee Thao; two John Doe Nurses and Nurse Jane Doe.
1
The court has supplemented the sparse allegations in the complaint with dates and procedural
information about plaintiff‟s underlying criminal case from the electronic docket available at
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, http://wcca.wicourts.gov (last visited November 15, 2013). The
court draws all other facts from the complaint in this case and several others filed recently by
Smith, as well as any exhibits attached to his pleadings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c); see also Witzke
v. Femal, 376 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that documents attached to the
complaint become part of the pleading, meaning that a court may consider those documents to
determine whether plaintiff has stated a valid claim).
2
Smith has been charged in that case with first-degree sexual assault with a dangerous weapon;
substantial battery intending bodily harm; strangulation and suffocation (two counts); false
imprisonment; and victim intimidation by use or attempted use of force. See State v. Derrick L.
Smith, Marathon County Case No. 2012CF386.
Smith contends primarily that Dickman has blocked his access to courts by maintaining an
inadequate law library and by failing to provide sufficient legal supplies at the Jail.
In
addition, Smith claims that Gleason has denied him adequate medical care and that “jail
medical staff” has also refused to promptly and adequately treat his medical conditions, which
include degenerative bone disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, Type II Diabetes, aftercare for
collapsed right lung and a damaged right eye.
OPINION
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff alleges too
little, failing to meet the minimal federal pleading requirements found in Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8(a) requires a “„short and plain statement of the claim‟
sufficient to notify the defendants of the allegations against them and enable them to file an
answer.” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). While it is not necessary
for a plaintiff to plead specific facts, he must articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This
requirement is not satisfied by “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2007)
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (observing that courts “are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) the
deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.
Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of
North Fond du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)).
To demonstrate liability under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that an individual personally caused or
participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568,
574 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. Taylorville Correctional Ctr., 129 F.3d 410, 413 (7th Cir. 1997)
(noting that “personal involvement” is required to support a claim under ' 1983). Dismissal
is proper “if the complaint fails to set forth „enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.‟” St. John’s United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 625
(7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Liberally construed, Smith‟s complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) denial
of access to courts; and (2) denial of adequate medical care with deliberate indifference to one
or more serious conditions. The court will not grant leave to proceed with respect to these
claims for reasons discussed briefly below.
Smith‟s complaint is vague as to virtually all details, not least of which is what actions
each defendant is alleged to have done to justify a claim against him or her personally.
Likewise, Smith fails to state what specifically was done to deny him access to the courts,
beyond the administrator‟s vague failing to maintain an adequate library. Finally, his claim
concerning the lack of adequate medical care includes no facts showing when he requested
care, what kind of care was requested, and who refused to provide the treatment sought.
Because Smith does not provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting his
claims, his proposed complaint does not meet the pleading standard found in Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). For this reason, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim.
In addition to the complaint‟s shortcomings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), Smith appears
to lodge claims against multiple defendants in a manner that does not comply with federal
4
pleading rules on joinder. Specifically, a plaintiff may only join “either as independent or as
alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an
opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). As a corollary, a plaintiff is only allowed the joinder
of several defendants if the claims arose out of a single transaction and contain a question of
fact or law common to all the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).
In this case, Smith attempts to bring distinct claims (denial of access to courts and the
denial of adequate medical care) without demonstrating how the defendants are related to a
single transaction or common question of law and fact. By lodging unrelated claims against
multiple defendants, the complaint does not comport with the federal pleading rules found in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) or 20(a). The Seventh Circuit has emphasized that Aunrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits@ and that federal joinder rules apply to
prisoners just as to other litigants. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The
Seventh Circuit having instructed that “buckshot complaints” should be “rejected,” Smith‟s
complaint is also subject to dismissal for violating these rules. Id.
Smith may file an amended complaint in this case to cure the deficiencies outlined
above. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of
this order. That proposed amended complaint must set forth a “short and plain statement”
of his claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and must include only those claims and defendants that
relate to a single transaction or common question of law and fact for purposes of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 18(a), 20(a). Any unrelated claims not pursued in this case must be brought in a separate
action. If plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court
will take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If
plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint as directed, then this case will be closed
5
without further notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Derrick L. Smith‟s request for leave to proceed is DENIED and his
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
2. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the
date of this order. That proposed amended complaint must set forth a “short
and plain statement” of the facts in support of his claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a), and must include only those claims and defendants that relate to a single
transaction or common question of law and fact for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P.
18(a), 20(a).
3. If plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the
court will take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint as
directed within thirty days, then this case will be closed without further
notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Entered this 22nd day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?