Sands Wedeward, Susan v. Local 306, National Postal Mail Handlers Union et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 5 Motion for More Definite Statement by Defendants. Plaintiff Susan Ann Sands-Wedeward may have until May 30, 2013 to file an amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff's 7 motion for judicial reassignment is denied. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/16/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUSAN ANN SANDS-WEDEWARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-100-bbc
v.
LOCAL 306, NATIONAL POSTAL
MAIL HANDLERS UNION and
JOHN CASTAGNA,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Susan Ann Sands-Wedeward, acting pro se, is suing defendants Local 306,
National Postal Mail Handlers Union and John Castagna, the branch president for Local 306
members at the Madison Postal Service facility, for the union’s failure to protect her after
she was injured and suspended from her employment with the United States Postal Service.
Plaintiff filed this action originally in the Circuit Court for Dane County, but defendants
removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Removal of this case is
appropriate under § 1441(a) because this court has original federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat difficult to understand,
it appears that plaintiff is alleging that she suffered an adverse employment action related
to a work injury, that Local 306 failed to represent her properly and that she sustained and
is continuing to sustain substantial injuries as a result. Claims against postal unions for

1

breach of a collective bargaining agreement or violation of a duty to provide fair
representation arise under federal law. 39 U.S.C. § 1208; Thomas v. National Association
of Letter Carriers, 225 F.3d 1149, 1158 (10th Cir. 2000).
Defendants have moved for a more definite statement of plaintiff’s claims against
them. Dkt. #5. In particular, defendants ask plaintiff to clarify whether she intended to
name Castagna as a defendant, or if she listed Castagna only because she intended to make
service on Local 306 through him. If plaintiff does intend to name Castagna as a defendant,
defendants seek clarification as to what claims plaintiff is bringing against him.
Additionally, defendants ask that plaintiff file a new complaint that complies with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), which requires pleadings to be “simple, concise, and direct.” The
materials plaintiff filed in the Circuit Court for Dane County consist of one document
labeled as a “petition” and a second unlabeled document. The petition contains four
numbered paragraphs, consisting largely of argumentative statements about plaintiff’s
injuries and seemingly irrelevant statements about plaintiff’s ex-husband. It contains no
allegations about the defendants. The separate three-page document with unnumbered
paragraphs provides additional allegations about her claims and contains some allegations
relating to defendant Local 306.
I am granting defendants’ motion. I understand that plaintiff is proceeding pro se
and it can be difficult to craft a complaint that is clear, concise and contains all of the
necessary information. However, I agree with defendants that plaintiff’s complaint is not
simple and concise and that it would be difficult for defendants to respond to it. Many of

2

plaintiff’s present allegations are not related directly to her claims against Local 306 and the
majority of plaintiff’s allegations are about her ongoing injuries, instead of the actions taken
by defendants that provide grounds for her claim. Plaintiff did attempt to clarify her claims
in her brief in opposition to defendants’ motion by providing more information about Local
306's duties as her representative.

However, plaintiff’s clarification in a brief is not

sufficient. She must file an amended complaint to which defendants can respond.
Additionally, plaintiff must clarify whether she is bringing a claim against Castagna and if
so, what that claim is. If plaintiff does not wish to sue Castagna, she should remove his
name from the caption of her amended complaint.
Plaintiff should draft the amended complaint as if she were telling a story to people
who know nothing about her situation. This means that someone reading the complaint
should be able to answer the following questions:
• What are the facts that form the basis for plaintiff’s claims?
• What actions did defendant take that violated plaintiff’s rights?
• What rights does plaintiff believe were violated?
• What relief does plaintiff want the court to provide?
Plaintiff should identify clearly the facts that form the basis for her claims against defendant
and should set forth her allegations in separate, numbered paragraphs using short and plain
statements. Plaintiff should identify clearly what rights she believes were violated and
should address each right separately. Plaintiff should omit arguments and should focus on
factual allegations relating to defendants, rather than allegations relating to her ongoing

3

injuries.
Plaintiff may have until May 30, 2013 to submit an amended complaint. If plaintiff
fails to submit an amended complaint by May 30, I will direct the clerk of court to enter
judgment in favor of defendants and close the case.
One final matter requires attention. In her brief in opposition to defendants’ motion,
plaintiff states that this case must be transferred to a different judge because I have a conflict
of interest. I understand plaintiff to be making a request for judicial reassignment. That
request will be denied. Certain statutes authorize recusal of judges for “personal bias or
prejudice,” 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, but plaintiff has alleged nothing that would
demonstrate that either of these apply.

I am not biased or prejudiced against plaintiff.

Plaintiff seems to believe that I am biased primarily because I issued decisions adverse to her
in previous cases. Sands-Wedeward v. Donahue, 12-cv-266-bbc; Sands-Wedeward v. Astrue,
12-cv-491-bbc. By themselves, such judicial rulings are not a sufficient basis for recusal.
Litekey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

The recusal statutes were not

“intended to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings.” Id.
at 549. In sum, the previous decisions I entered in this case were based on my interpretation
of the law and facts and not on any personal bias or prejudice. There is no basis for judicial
reassignment.

4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion for a more definite statement filed by defendants Local 306, National
Postal Mail Handlers Union and John Castagna, dkt. #5, is GRANTED. Plaintiff Susan
Ann Sands-Wedeward may have until May 30, 2013 to file an amended complaint that
complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial reassignment, dkt. #7, is DENIED.
Entered this 16th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

5