Brozek, Brent v. Dentice, Mike

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/28/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BRENT E. BROZEK,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-43-bbc
v.
MIKE DENTICE,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this case, plaintiff Brent Brozek submitted a proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that his lease agreement to drive a cab was terminated by defendant Mike
Dentice. In a March 29, 2013 order, I dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
because nothing in his allegations suggested that plaintiff was bringing claims that belonged
in federal court. I gave him a chance to amend his complaint to include allegations
demonstrating that he intended to bring a claim over which this court has jurisdiction. Since
then,

the

court

has

become

aware

of

plaintiff’s

death.

Madison.com,http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/update-police-id-man
-fatally-shot-after-standoff/article_7b1036f4-5b2d-5584-b0c4-32b1458edc70.html

(last

visited May 28, 2013).
Under Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party dies, the
court may order the substitution of the proper party, ordinarily the personal representative

1

of the deceased party, if “the claim is not extinguished.” The motion for substitution must
be filed within 90 days “after service of a statement noting the death.” Id. However, in the
present case, there are no valid claims in which a successor could proceed and there is no
defendant to serve a statement of death because no defendants have yet been served with a
complaint).
Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, submitted in response to the court’s March
29, 2013, vastly expands the scope of the case to include a prior employer as well as parties
involved in his 2009 civil commitment, but none of his allegations are sufficient to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted in this court. In addition, it is extremely unlikely
that he would have been allowed to bring claims against the different groups of defendants
named in his amended complaint because they appear to be part of unrelated incidents. If
plaintiff was still alive, I would have dismissed his amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 and 20 and directed him to file a new amended complaint limited to one set of incidents
and more fully detailing his claims regarding that set. Because plaintiff has died and neither
of his complaints contained allegations stating valid claims upon which relief may be
granted, I will dismiss the lawsuit.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

2

relief may be granted.
Entered this 28th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3