Young, Michael v. The State of Wisconsin Equal Rights Division et al
ORDER dismissing plaintiff's 1 Complaint for failure to state a claim. The clerk's office is directed to close this case. All future motions, complaints or other materials filed by plaintiff in this district will be forwarded to chambers without judicial action unless otherwise directed by the court. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/5/2014. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
OPINION AND ORDER
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN EQUAL
RIGHTS DIVISION, ERIC FERGISON,
JOHNNIE A. NELSON, RAYMOND MEJA,
LARRY JAKUBOWSKI, GARY OLSTEAD,
and JOHN GRANDBERRY,
In this proposed action, serial-filer and pro se plaintiff Michael Young alleges that
defendants the State of Wisconsin Equal Rights Division and several of its employees
refuse to accept his complaints. (Dkt. #1.) Plaintiff asked for leave to proceed under the
in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and from his financial affidavit, the court
concluded that plaintiff was unable to prepay the fee for filing this lawsuit. The next step
is determining whether plaintiff’s proposed action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks money damages from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Young has
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, the court will deny him leave to
proceed. Furthermore, for the reasons described below, this court, too, will impose
restrictions on Young’s future filings in this court.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations
generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). For purposes of this screening
order, the court assumes the following facts based on the allegations in his complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that dating back to the 1970s until now, the State of Wisconsin
Equal Rights Division unlawfully refuses to accept his equal rights complaints. Plaintiff
estimates that he has filed approximately 200 complaints in a 43-year period and that
the Division has yet to find probable cause with respect to any of his complaints.
Young names a state agency as a defendant to this action. Liability under § 1983
attaches to a “person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage” of state power deprive a citizen of any right under the Constitution or federal law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). A state and its agencies, however, are not “persons”
under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989) (holding that
“a State is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983”); Witte v. Wis. Dep’t of
Corrections, 434 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 2006) (same). As such, Young cannot assert a
claim against the State of Wisconsin Equal Rights Division.
While Young also names individual employees of the division as defendants,
§ 1983 requires “personal involvement” in an alleged constitutional deprivation for a
defendant to be liable. Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003). Here,
Young’s complaint is devoid of any allegations directed at the individual defendants.
Accordingly, the court will deny Young leave to proceed.
This is the final of five screening order the court has issued today on Young’s
outstanding motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In less than two years, Young
has filed sixteen complaints in this court, only one of which survived the screening phase.
Young’s use of judicial resources to pursue meritless claims must stop.
As such, the court will direct the clerk of court to route directly to chambers any
further pleading or papers Young files in this court. If the pleading appears to raise
claims that can be heard in this court, it will be returned to the clerk’s office with
instructions to open a new case file.
If the pleading suffers from the same obvious
deficiencies as here and in Young’s other, numerous filings, it will be deemed dismissed
without order and given no further consideration. See Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d
312, 315 (7th Cir. 1997). Young is also warned that he will risk additional sanctions,
including monetary penalties, if he continues to abuse court resources with further
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff Michael Young’s complaint is DISMISSED for his failure to state a
2) the clerk’s office is directed to close this case; and
3) all future motions, complaints or other materials filed by plaintiff in this
district will be forwarded to chambers without judicial action unless
otherwise directed by the court.
Entered this 5th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?