Mutawakkil, Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru v. Geri et al
Filing
10
ORDER denying plaintiff's 7 motion to join defendants and claims. Plaintiff may have until March 11, 2013, to identify for the court whether he wishes to proceed with lawsuits 1 through 10. Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED as to defendant Mary Miller. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/25/2013. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRINCE ATUM-RA UHURU MUTAWAKKIL
also known as NORMAN C. GREEN,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-816-bbc
v.
CAPTAIN GERI, SGT. PATTEN, M. TAYLOR,
JOHNSON, McDANIELS, LT. BORSEN,
SGT. KUSSMAUL, PETER HUIBREGTSE,
BRIAN KOOL, A. DUNBAR, ELLEN RAY,
CAPTAIN GILBERG, BURTON COX,
MARY MILLER, CYNTHIA THORPE,
JANE DOE #1 and JANE/JOHN DOE #2,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru Mutawakkil, also known as Norman Green,
has filed a proposed amended complaint as directed by the court in an order dated January
28, 2013, to clarify the scope of his claims. Plaintiff had included someone named Mary
Miller in his caption along with two “Doe” defendants without including any allegations
about them in the body of his complaint. In addition, he included numerous allegations
about Christina Beerkircher and Kelly Trumm in his complaint but he had not listed those
individuals in the caption.
In his proposed amended complaint, plaintiff made the following changes that are
1
responsive to the January 28 order: (1) he named Christina Beerkircher and Kelly Trumm
as defendants in the caption; (2) he added an allegation that “Jane Doe #1” denied his open
records request; and (3) he added an allegation that “John/Jane Doe #2" caused the removal
of his “no kneeling” restriction by giving him a false conduct report. Plaintiff did not include
any allegations about Mary Miller, but he asks the court in a memorandum accompanying
his proposed amended complaint to keep her in the case while he conducts discovery. I
cannot grant that request because Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires a plaintiff to give each defendant
notice of the claim against her. Because plaintiff has not included any allegations about
Miller, I must dismiss her from the case. If plaintiff later discovers information showing that
Miller was involved in a constitutional violation related to a claim that survives screening,
plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint at that time.
I also told plaintiff in the January 28 order that his complaint violated Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20 because it included unrelated claims against different defendants. Although I could
not tell plaintiff which claims could be joined until he resolved the issues about which
officials he intended to sue, I encouraged him to review the rule when preparing his amended
complaint and omit any claims that could not be joined properly. Dkt. #6.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint omits one of the 27 claims in his original complaint.
In addition, he has filed a document that he calls a “motion to join defendants and claims”
in which he argues that all his remaining claims are joined properly because they are part of
a “campaign of harassment.”
Dkt. #7.
However, he adds no factual allegations
2
demonstrating a closer relationship among his various claims. As I informed plaintiff in the
January 28 order, “conspiracy allegations [are] often held to a higher standard than other
allegations; mere suspicion that persons adverse to the plaintiff had joined a conspiracy
against him or her [is] not enough.” Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970–71 (7th Cir.
2009).
Having reviewed plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, I conclude that plaintiff is
raising claims that belong in no fewer than 10 different lawsuits:
Lawsuit #1:
•
from 2002 to 2006, defendant Cox failed to provide adequate
treatment for plaintiff's pain and swelling in his feet by refusing or
delaying adequate pain medication, an MRI, a referral to a podiatrist,
"walking and exercise" shoes, physical therapy and vitamins;
•
defendants Ray and Huibregtse denied a grievance related to the shoes;
•
defendants Beerkircher, Ray and Thorpe denied plaintiff’s grievances
about delays in pain medication;
•
defendant Beerkircher “violat[ed] DOC 310 confidentiality clause on
inmate complaints.”
Lawsuit #2:
•
defendants Trumm, Ray and Huibregtse falsely rejected various
grievances plaintiff filed for being late;
•
defendant Ray denied a grievance plaintiff filed about inadequate
exercise;
•
defendants Trumm and Huibregtse denied plaintiff’s grievances about
prison staff opening his legal mail.
3
Lawsuit #3:
•
defendant Gilbert refused to allow plaintiff to use his walking aid
during out of cell movement; defendants Beerkircher and Ray denied
grievances on this issue;
•
defendants Beerkircher, Ray and Huibregtse authorized the use of
restraints on plaintiff during out of cell movement.
Lawsuit #4:
•
defendants Kool, McDaniels, Cox, Ray, Huibregtse and John/Jane Doe
#2 removed plaintiff’s “no kneeling” restriction;
•
defendant McDaniels gave plaintiff a conduct report for refusing to
kneel before he was restrained;
•
defendants Boisen and Huibregtse failed to provide plaintiff a fair
hearing on the conduct report;
•
defendants Patten, Geri, Johnson, McDaniels and Taylor subjected
plaintiff to a strip search because plaintiff refused to kneel;
•
defendants McDaniels and Kool harassed and retaliated against
plaintiff because of his "dissent to participate in the brainwashing
programming at the prison";
•
defendant Kool refused to transfer plaintiff off a unit where officers
were retaliating against him;
•
defendant Kool turned the lights on and banged on doors to harass
plaintiff;
Lawsuit #5:
•
defendant Dunbar gave plaintiff a conduct report for how he slept;
4
•
defendants Taylor, McDaniels and Dunbar searched plaintiff’s cell;1
Lawsuit #6:
•
defendants Kool, Kussmaul, McDaniels and Dunbar “denied all
recreation, law library and health calls”;
Lawsuit #7:
•
defendants Geri, Taylor, McDaniels and Johnson used excessive force
against plaintiff and subjected him to a strip search; defendants
Huibregtse, Ray and Cox approved these actions;
•
defendant Geri refused to allow plaintiff to see the nurse after the use
of force;
•
defendant Geri gave plaintiff a false conduct report related to the
excessive force;
•
defendants Boisen and Huibregtse refused to allow plaintiff to call
many of his witnesses at the disciplinary hearing;
•
defendant Boisen found plaintiff guilty and disciplined him by giving
him 270 days in segregation;
•
defendants Ray and Huibregtse denied a grievance that plaintiff still
had pain in his hand as a result of the excessive use of force;
•
defendants Trumm and Huibregtse refused to turn over documents
related to an excessive use of force;
•
defendants Geri dispensed aspirin to plaintiff in an unsanitary fashion;
1
In the context of this claim and some others, plaintiff’s allegations relate to
“defendant Bar.” I assume that plaintiff meant to name defendant Dunbar because plaintiff
did not include a “defendant Bar” in the caption. If that is incorrect and plaintiff chooses
to proceed on any claim that includes “defendant Bar,” plaintiff will have to file another
amended complaint that includes defendant Bar in the caption.
5
defendants Ray and Huibregtse denied plaintiff’s grievance on this
issue;
•
defendant Ray denied plaintiff’s grievance regarding the lack of
procedural safeguards for strip searches;
Lawsuit #8:
•
unnamed defendants subjected plaintiff to harsh cell conditions,
including cold temperatures and lack of bedding;
Lawsuit #9:
•
defendants Ray, Kussmaul and Jane Doe #1 refused to turn over a
report regarding an incident in June 2005;
Lawsuit #10:
•
unnamed defendants refused to provide documents used in an
appellate brief in an unspecified case.
Under George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), I may apply the initial
partial payment plaintiff has made to only one of the lawsuits I have identified above.
Plaintiff will have to choose which lawsuit that is. That lawsuit will be the only lawsuit
assigned to this case number.
As for the other lawsuits, plaintiff has a more difficult choice. He may choose to
pursue those lawsuits separately. In that case, he will be required to pay separate filing fees
for each lawsuit. In addition, plaintiff may be subjected to a separate strike under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) for each of the separate lawsuits that he pursues if the lawsuit is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As plaintiff may be aware, once a
prisoner receives three strikes, he is not able to proceed in new lawsuits without first paying
6
the full filing fee except in very narrow circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Alternatively, plaintiff may choose to dismiss one or more of the other lawsuits
voluntarily. If he chooses this latter route, he will not owe additional filing fees or face a
strike for any lawsuit he dismisses. Any lawsuit he dismisses voluntarily will be dismissed
without prejudice, so plaintiff would be able to bring it at another time, so long as he files
it before the statute of limitations as run.
Plaintiff should be aware that because it is not clear at this time which of his separate
lawsuits he will pursue, I have not assessed the merits of the claims raised in any of the
lawsuits identified above or determined whether they comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Once
plaintiff identifies the suit or suits he wants to continue to litigate, I will screen the
complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff faces filing fees and
potential strikes for each lawsuit he pursues, he should consider carefully the merits and
relative importance of each of his potential lawsuits when choosing which of them he wishes
to pursue.
If plaintiff disagrees with the way the court has grouped his claims or if he believes
the court has left out claims he intended to assert or included claims he did not intend to
assert, he may raise those objections in his response, but he must still comply with this order
and choose which of the 10 lawsuits he wishes to pursue. If he fails to do so, I will construe
his silence as a request to dismiss all of his claims without prejudice to his refiling them at
a later date.
7
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion filed by plaintiff Prince Atum-Ra Uhuru Mutawkkil, also known as
Norman Green, to “join defendants and claims,” dkt. #7, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff may have until March 11, 2013, to identify for the court whether he
wishes to proceed with Lawsuit #1, Lawsuit #2, Lawsuit #3, Lawsuit #4, Lawsuit #5,
Lawsuit #6, Lawsuit #7, Lawsuit #8, Lawsuit #9 OR Lawsuit #10 under the number
assigned to this case. Plaintiff must pick one and only one of these lawsuits to proceed under
case no. 12-cv-816-bbc.
3. Plaintiff may have until March 11, 2013, to advise the court of which other
lawsuits he wishes to pursue under separate case numbers, if any, and which lawsuits he will
withdraw voluntarily, if any.
4. For any lawsuit that plaintiff dismisses voluntarily, he will not owe a filing fee.
5. For each lawsuit plaintiff chooses to pursue, he will owe a separate $350 filing fee
and will be assessed an initial partial payment.
6. If plaintiff fails to respond to this order by March 11, 2013, I will enter an order
dismissing the lawsuit as it presently exists without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling it at a later
date.
8
7. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED as to defendant Mary Miller.
Entered this 25th day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
9
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?