Singh, Aman v. Marks, K. et al

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's equal protection claim regarding work release privileges for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This case will proceed solely with the claims on which plaintiff was allowed to proceed in the May 11 order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/6/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

AMAN SINGH,
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-507-jdp

K. MARKS, CATHY JESS, PAUL KEMPER,
MS. BELLIS, UNNAMED RCI PROGRAM REVIEW
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UNNAMED APPEAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DOC OFFENDER
CLASSIFICATION AND MOVEMENT,
UNNAMED MEMBERS OF THE ACT 28 REPEAL
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, MS. SEITZ,
EMILY NELSON, and KATHY NAGLE,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Aman Singh, a resident of Greenfield, Wisconsin, is proceeding on claims
that various prison officials unconstitutionally deprived him of opportunities to participate in
programs while he was incarcerated at the Racine Correctional Institution that could have
earned him early release, and that they rescinded “positive adjustment time” that he had
earned. In a May 11, 2015 order screening plaintiff’s claims, I did not allow plaintiff to
proceed on an equal protection claim that prison officials denied his requests for work release
privileges even though all other inmates who were rated “low risk” were granted that
privilege, because plaintiff did not explain why he was discriminated against. Dkt. 6 (citing
Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 899 (7th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (Posner, J.,
leading opinion) (“The plaintiff must plead and prove both the absence of a rational basis for
the defendant’s action and some improper personal motive . . . for the differential
treatment.”)). I gave plaintiff until May 26, 2015, to submit an amended complaint more

fully developing that claim. Id. That deadline has now passed without word from plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s equal protection claim regarding work release
privileges is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This
case will proceed solely with the claims on which plaintiff was allowed to proceed in the May
11 order.
Entered July 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2