Grandy, Rickey v. Baenen, Michael et al

Filing 15

ORDER that plaintiff Rickey Grandy's motion for leave to amend (dkt. 14 ) is DENIED. So that plaintiff may re-file his complaint in the proper district, it is further ORDERED that plaintiff's alternative motion to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) (dkt. # 14 ) is GRANTED. Therefore, the clerk's office is directed to close this case. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/14/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICKEY GRANDY,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
l 4-cv-42-wmc

v.

MICHAEL BAENEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Rickey Grandy is presently incarcerated by the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections at the Waupun Correctional Institution.

Plaintiff recently filed this

proposed civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning the conditions of his
confinement at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, where he was formerly assigned.
Plaintiff has been found eligible to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for
purposes of the federal in Jonna pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a), and his complaint is
now pending before the court for screening as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 28 U.S.C. § l 915A.
Noting that the original complaint was prepared by another inmate, plaintiff has
now filed a motion for an extension of time, up to and including May 28, 2014, in which
to file an amended complaint with corrected information.

(Dkt. # 14). Alternatively,

assuming that leave to amend is not allowed, plaintiff moves to voluntarily dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a). Having considered the original complaint,
the court will deny plaintiffs motion for leave to amend and dismiss this case without
prejudice for reasons set forth briefly below.
First, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend must be denied because he has not

I

provided a proposed amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 along with his request
for leave to amend. A litigant's failure to submit a proposed amended pleading dooms
his request for leave to amend. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 590-91 (7th Cir.
2009); fames Cape & Sons Co. v. PCC Constr. Co., 453 F.3d 396, 401 (7th Cir. 2006);

Twohy v. First Nat'/ Bank of Chi., 758 F.2d 1185, 1197 (7th Cir. 1985).
Second, although the court could allow an extension of time to submit a new
complaint, an amendment is not likely to cure a defect found in the original pleadings.
In that respect, plaintiffs claims clearly concern the conditions of his confinement at the
Green Bay Correctional Institution, which is located in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

See 28 U.S.C. § 130(a).

The facility where

plaintiff is confined (Waupun Correctional Institution) is also located in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

Accordingly, this case was improperly filed in the Western

District. See 28 U.S.C. § 139l(a)-(b)(providing that venue for in a civil action is proper
where the defendants reside or in the "judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred").
So that plaintiff may file any amended complaint in the proper district, the court
will grant Grandy's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4l(a).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Rickey Grandy's motion for leave to amend (dkt.

2

,-

# 14) is DENIED. So that plaintiff may re-file his complaint in the proper district, it is

further ORDERED that plaintiff's alternative motion to voluntarily dismiss this case
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a) (dkt. # 14) is GRANTED.
Therefore, the clerk's office is directed to close this case.
Entered this 14th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3