Jones, Michael v. Swenson et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying plaintiff leave to proceed on his constitutional claims that defendant officers Swenson, Caudillo and Preston verbally harassed him. The remainder of plaintiff's complaint, dkt. # 1 , is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until May 7, 2014 to submit an amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/17/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MICHAEL J. JONES,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-109-bbc1
v.
OFFICERS SWENSON, CAUDILLO
and PRESTON,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Michael J. Jones, a prisoner incarcerated at the Columbia Correctional
Institution, has submitted a proposed civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
correctional officers have harassed him and exposed him to danger at the hands of other
inmates. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has made an initial partial
payment of the filing fee, as previously ordered by the court. The next step is to screen
plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money damages from a defendant who
by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In addressing any pro se
litigant's complaint, the court must read the allegations of the complaint generously.
McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010).

1

After reviewing plaintiff’s

I am assuming jurisdiction over this case for the purpose of issuing this order.

1

complaint, I conclude that he may not proceed at this time because his complaint does not
satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
The following facts are drawn from plaintiff’s complaint.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff Michael J. Jones is an inmate at the Columbia Correctional Institution.
Defendants Swenson, Caudillo and Preston are correctional officers at the prison.
Starting on June 19, 2013, defendants harassed plaintiff in the showers, saying that
he had a small penis and laughing at him. They "picked on [plaintiff] and treated him like
dirt," humiliating him every time he took a shower. He was treated worse than all other
inmates, particularly the white inmates.
When plaintiff said he would sue the prison, he got "credible threats of immediate
harm from inmates . . . because staff and inmates stuck together against [him]." Plaintiff
states that '"they" put him in danger of sexual assault and "other objectively unconstitutional
conditions."

OPINION
Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed by defendants and when he complained about
it, he was threatened and placed in danger. Usually, verbal harassment alone is not sufficient
to support a constitutional claim. Dewalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000)
(“[S]imple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deprive a

2

prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws.”);
Dobbey v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 574 F.3d 443, 446 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“[H]arassment, while regrettable, is not what comes to mind when one thinks of ‘cruel and
unusual’ punishment.”).
However, plaintiff seems to be saying that after he complained about this harassment,
he was threatened, placed in danger of sexual assault and faced other “unconstitutional
conditions.” To the extent that prison officials threatened him with harm, failed to protect
him from harm or retaliated against him in response to him complaining about the
harassment, he may be able to state a constitutional claim. The problem with plaintiff’s
allegations regarding these actions is that it is difficult to tell what threats plaintiff faced and
whether the named defendants are responsible for them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
requires a plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff must also show which defendants are responsible for
each constitutional violation he believes occurred.
Because plaintiff’s allegations do not pass muster under Rule 8, I will dismiss the
complaint and will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that provides
fair notice to defendants of the claims he is asserting against them. Plaintiff should draft the
amended complaint as if he were telling a story to people who know nothing about his
situation. This means that someone reading the complaint should be able to answer the
following questions:
•

How and to whom did plaintiff complain about the verbal harassment?

•

What did defendants do to retaliate against him?

3

•

How does plaintiff know that defendants meant to retaliate against him?

•

What danger or unconstitutional conditions of confinement did plaintiff face?

•

What did defendants do to protect plaintiff from these dangers or conditions?

To the extent that plaintiff believes that other prison officials besides Swenson,
Caudillo and Preston violated his rights, he may include those officials as defendants, but
he will have to amend the caption of his complaint to include those officials and explain in
the body of the complaint what they did to violate his rights.
I will give plaintiff a short time to file an amended complaint. If he does not submit
an amended complaint by this deadline, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment in
favor of defendants and close the case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Michael J. Jones is DENIED leave to proceed on constitutional claims
that defendant officers Swenson, Caudillo and Preston verbally harassed him.
2. The remainder of plaintiff’s complaint, dkt. #1, is DISMISSED for failure to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until May 7, 2014 to submit an amended
complaint. If plaintiff fails to do so by this deadline, I will direct the clerk of court to enter

4

judgment in favor of defendants.
Entered this 17th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

5