Hardy, Charlie v. Stone House Development et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying plaintiff Charlie L. Hardy leave to proceed on her claims and dismissing her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until May 16, 2013, to submit a proposed amended complaint. If plaintiff submits a revised complaint by that date, I will take the 8 amended complaint under advisement for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/29/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHARLIE L. HARDY,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-872-bbc
v.
STONE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT,
ANGELA BROCKMAN and
KASIE SETTERLUND,1
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this proposed civil action, pro se plaintiff Charlie L. Hardy alleges that, because of
her race, defendants Stone House Development, Angela Brockman and Kasie Setterlund
threatened to evict her if she attended college. In addition, she alleges that after she filed a
claim with the Equal Rights Division, defendants retaliated against her in various ways.
In an order entered on January 29, 2013, I dismissed plaintiff’s complaint under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8 because the complaint did not include enough allegations to state a plausible
claim for relief. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, dkt. #8, but I am unable to screen
it at this time because it fails to comply with Rule 8 and this court’s practices. Plaintiff may
have one more opportunity to amend her complaint.

1

Defendants Angela Brockman and Kasie Setterlund were omitted unintentionally
from the previous order entered on January 29, 2013.
1

When I dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, I explained that if plaintiff wanted to proceed,
she had to file a completely new complaint to replace the original complaint. The amended
complaint was to include all the facts about her claim, explaining what happened to her,
when it happened and who did it. I said that she should write her new complaint as if she
were telling a story to someone who knew nothing about her situation. I also explained that
she should write the facts in short, numbered paragraphs.
Plaintiff did not follow these instructions when she wrote her proposed amended
complaint. First, it is not a complete complaint. It does not have a caption identifying the
defendants. Plaintiff does not say what relief she wants. She has omitted many of the
allegations from her original complaint, including allegations describing the alleged
harassment or explaining when she left her apartment. In addition, plaintiff has filed two
supplements to her proposed amended complaint, dkts. ##10, 12, that offer additional
factual allegations. Plaintiff seems to assume that the court will combine the amended
complaint with her original complaint and the supplements. However, as I explained in the
previous opinion, when a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, she has to file one new
complaint containing all her allegations. It is too difficult and confusing for the parties and
the court to look at different complaints to try to determine what claims plaintiff is asserting.
All of the facts that plaintiff believes are necessary to an understanding of her claim should
be included in a single amended complaint.
Second, the proposed amended complaint is not written in short and plain numbered
paragraphs. The complaint includes several lengthy paragraphs that address more than one

2

topic. In addition, several statements are written in the margins of the pages. If plaintiff
files an amended complaint, she should write the complaint in numbered paragraphs and
limit each paragraph as much as possible to a separate fact or event. She should not write
in the margins.
Last, plaintiff’s amended complaint includes 111 pages of documents and
photographs with notes. The court cannot sift through these documents to determine the
nature of plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, defendants have no way to answer the documents.
If plaintiff believes that these documents prove specific facts, she should write those factual
allegations in the body of her complaint. Plaintiff does not need to file evidence with her
complaint. If plaintiff is allowed to proceed on her claims, then she will have an opportunity
to provide evidence.
Plaintiff may have until May 16, 2013 to file a proposed amended complaint. I have
attached to this order a copy of the court’s civil complaint form for plaintiff to use for
guidance. I urge her to read the order entered on January 29, 2013 again before filing an
amended complaint.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Charlie L. Hardy is DENIED leave to proceed on her
claims and her complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for violation of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until May 16, 2013, 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

3

for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. If plaintiff submits a revised complaint by that date, I will
take the amended complaint under advisement for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
Entered this 29th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4