Wright III, John v. Kilsdonk et al

Filing 9

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. ( Amended Complaint due 10/30/2014. ) Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/9/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN W. WRIGHT III,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-cv-283-jdp 1

v.
MRS. KILSDONK, DR. SPOTTS, MS. PARICER,
MS. SHARP, MS. BONES, MR. KEMPER,
AND MR. HOWARD,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff John W. Wright III, an inmate at the Racine Correctional Institution, has
filed this proposed action naming several prison officials as defendants. Plaintiff has made an
initial partial payment of the filing fee as directed by the court. The next step in this case is for
the court to screen the 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 & l 9 l 5A.
In screening any pro se litigant's complaint, the court must read the allegations of the
complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). However, even under this
standard, plaintiffs allegations are insufficient because his complaint does not satisfy the
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff's
complaint and give him a short time to file an amended complaint.
The following facts are drawn from plaintiff's complaint.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff John W. Wright l!I is an inmate at the Racine Correctional Institution. On

~=;·
(:. - ,~..,~·:~, t.>-"C':::Cfi:{~:':ll

L~--

'-

r~::::-:-:"'.::-n

L.

Crc~r!cr

February 21, 2014, as plaintiff was returning to his cell, a fellow inmate told him not to go in.
Plaintiff entered anyway and saw his cellmate engaged in oral sex with another inmate.
Plaintiffs cellmate told him, "Don't say nothing." Plaintiff responded that he was going to
report the incident.
Plaintiff told defendant social worker Ms. Sharp about the incident, but she said that
there was nothing she could do and told plaintiff to wait for defendant Sergeant Parker. When
plaintiff talked to Parker, she laughed at plaintiff. Plaintiff wrote a grievance to defendant Ms.
Bones but she did nothing to help him. Plaintiff talked to defendant Mrs. Kilsdonk but she
laughed at him, told him she was not going to move his cell assignment, and called him a snitch.
Plaintiff wrote to defendant Warden Kemper, but he never responded. Plaintiff wrote to
defendant Ms. Spotts,

a "psychological" official, but she laughed at him and asked him if he felt

he was "coming out of the shell of being gay." Plaintiff states that he could not sleep for seven
days after the incident because he was scared and no longer feels safe "around these guards
[they're] all together and share information with one another." Plaintiff states that he needs
psychological treatment "away" from the Racine prison.

ANALYSIS
To properly state a claim, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A court will accept the
factual allegations in the complaint as true, but they must give '"fair notice of what ... the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombry, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). At present, I cannot tell what type of claim
plaintiff is attempting to bring because although he states that he is "scared," he does not
explain what danger he faces or how that danger is related to the February 21, 2014 incident
2

plaintiff details in his complaint. The court is aware that sexual contact between inmates
violates prison rules, see Wis. Admin. Code. § 303.15, but plaintiff does not explain how he was
harmed by seeing his cellmate engaging in oral sex with another inmate. For instance, he does
not explain whether he was threatened by either of the inmates for reporting what he saw,
whether he believes that he faces a risk of being sexually assaulted, or whether he believes that
he was psychologically damaged in some way by witnessing the sexual contact or by the various
defendants' responses to his complaints.
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 understand what danger or
unconstitutional conditions of confinement plaintiff faced and what each defendant did or failed
to do that harmed plaintiff. If plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint by the deadline
stated below, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close
the case.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) The complaint filed by plaintiff John W. Wright III, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED for failing
to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2) Plaintiff may have until October 30, 2014 to submit an amended complaint
explaining the basis for his claims. Failure to submit an amended complaint by this
deadline will result in dismissal of the case.
Entered this 9th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4