Bahr, Gregory v. Mahaney, Lynnae et al

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Amended Complaint due 7/20/2015. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/18/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

GREGORY ALLEN BAHR,
Plaintiff,

OPINION and ORDER

v.

14-cv-521-wmc

LYNNAE M. MAHANEY, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Gregory Allen Bahr has filed this proposed civil action in which he contends
that three employees at the local Veterans Administration (“VA”) Hospital denied him
needed medication. Because Bahr seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs, the court must screen the proposed complaint and dismiss any portion that is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In addressing any
pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations generously, reviewing them
under “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). Even under this lenient standard, however, Bahr’s request for
leave to proceed must be denied because he does not provide sufficient facts to support a
recognizable claim.

1

OPINION
Bahr’s complaint contains very few allegations. He alleges that defendants Lynnae
Mahaney, Kay Walker and Andrew Wilcox were “deliberately indifferent” to his “serious
medical needs” because they denied him medication, or directed staff at the VA Hospital to
deny him medication, needed to treat his medical or psychiatric condition.
Liberally construed, Bahr is contending that the defendants committed medical
malpractice by denying him treatment. His claim is actionable, if at all, under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which makes the federal government liable for acts or omissions
by its employees that would be torts in the state in which they occurred had they been
committed by someone other than a federal employee.

28 U.S.C. § 2674.

Individual

government employees are not liable under the FTCA, however, so Bahr cannot proceed
against Mahaney, Wilcox or Walker. See Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2008).
The only appropriate defendant in an FTCA claim is the United States. Id.
Even assuming that Bahr is intending to sue the United States, Bahr’s complaint must
be dismissed because it violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under that

Rule, a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” This means that “the complaint must describe the claim in
sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” EEOC v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.
2007). Bahr’s threadbare complaint does not provide the United States with fair notice of
the grounds for his claims and does not support an inference that he is entitled to relief.
Bahr provides no details about his medical condition or the treatment that was requested, but

2

denied by Mahaney, Wilcox or Walker.

The lack of detail requires dismissal of Bahr’s

complaint without prejudice, meaning that he could still file an amended complaint that
includes more information about his claim.
If Bahr chooses to file an amended complaint, however, he should draft it as if he is
telling a story to someone who knows nothing about his situation.

This means that he

should explain: (1) what happened to make him believe he has a legal claim; (2) when it
happened; (3) who did it; (4) why; and (5) how the court can assist them in relation to those
events. He should specifically describe his medical conditions, who diagnosed the conditions
and prescribed the treatment or medications to address it, and why he believes Mahaney,
Walker and Wilcox denied him access to that treatment.

Bahr should set forth his

allegations in separate, numbered paragraphs using short and plain statements.

After he

finishes drafting his complaint, he should review the complaint and consider whether it could
be understood by someone who is not familiar with the facts of his case. If not, he should
make necessary changes.
Even if Bahr is able to file an amended complaint that contains sufficient detail to
comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he should also be aware that he
cannot maintain a claim against the United States under the FTCA unless he has presented
an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and given the agency an
opportunity to investigate and act on that claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Glade ex rel. Lundskow
v. United States, 692 F.3d 718, 723 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Tort Claims Act requires exhaustion of
administrative remedies as a prerequisite to suit.”).

In this case, the appropriate federal

agency is the Veterans Administration. This lawsuit would be subject to immediate dismissal

3

upon a motion by the United States if he has not yet filed an administrative claim with the
Veterans Administration concerning the claims he is attempting to bring in this lawsuit.
If Bahr submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will
take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
If he does not provide an amended complaint that fixes the problems identified in this order
by July 20, 2015, the court will close this case without further notice.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff Gregory Allen Bahr’s request for leave to proceed is DENIED and his
complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a).
(2) To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint by July 20, 2015, that
complies with the instructions provided in this order.
(3) If plaintiff submits an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the
court will take that complaint under consideration for screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint
as directed, then this case will be closed without further notice.
Entered this 18th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4