Grissom, Terrance et al v. Pollard, William

Filing 39

ORDER dismissing plaintiff Terrance Grissom from this case. The case will proceed with plaintiff Robert Kidd as the sole plaintiff. All of plaintiff Kidd's pendings motions are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Kidd may have until July 15, 2016 to inform the court whether he would like to continue with this lawsuit. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/27/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

TERRANCE GRISSOM and ROBERT KIDD,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER
14-cv-808-jdp

WILLIAM J. POLLARD,
Defendant.

Plaintiffs Terrance Grissom and Robert Kidd, prisoners in the custody of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, bring this lawsuit against William Pollard, warden of
the Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI), alleging that he disregarded their complaints
about improper treatment of their mental and physical health issues and other problems. But
as I have discussed previously, it is unclear whether either plaintiff wants to continue with
the case, and whether plaintiff Kidd wishes to proceed in a joint lawsuit with plaintiff
Grissom. See Dkt. 10. Plaintiff Grissom has not responded to this court’s orders, and plaintiff
Kidd has provided contradictory responses. I will address each plaintiff’s status in turn below.
A. Plaintiff Grissom
Plaintiff Grissom is a frequent litigator in this court (he has brought over 60 cases
here since 1990) who has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and who independently
has been barred from filing new complaints in this court unless his allegations show that he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Grissom v. Kuluike, No. 14-cv-590-jdp
(W.D. Wis. Jan. 12, 2015). I have already concluded that Grissom’s allegations that
defendant Pollard is ignoring his physical and mental health problems suffices to meet the
imminent danger standard. See Dkt. 10, at 2. But I directed Grissom to submit $0.03 as an

initial partial payment of the filing fee for this case, and he has failed to do so or otherwise
respond to this court’s orders in this case, even as he has moved on to initiate a new case in
this court. Grissom v. Dittmann, 15-cv-705-jdp. This is part of a trend in Grissom’s recent
litigation, in which he files lawsuits but then does nothing to prosecute them. See, e.g., Grissom
v. Luduigson, No. 14-cv-758-jdp (W.D. Wis.) (case dismissed after Grissom failed to submit
initial partial payment of filing fee); Grissom v. Vandenlangenberg, No. 14-cv-490-jdp (W.D.
Wis.) (same). Because Grissom has once again failed to submit an initial partial payment or
otherwise respond, I will dismiss him from this case.1
B. Plaintiff Kidd
Plaintiff Kidd responded to this court’s order asking him for his prison trust fund
account statement by submitting letters suggesting, incorrectly, that he believes that he can
obtain a full waiver of the filing fee because he is disabled as a result of military service, and
suggesting that his signature on the complaint was forged by plaintiff Grissom. I directed
Kidd to explain whether he would like to continue with this lawsuit and to submit a trust
fund account statement. Dkt. 10, at 3-4. Kidd has responded with a series of filings, some
making it is seem like he would like to continue with this case and others asking for refund of
his filing fee.
Kidd continues to be laboring under the assumption that he is not required to pay any
of the filing fee for this case because he is a disabled veteran. But this is not the case. If he
chooses to continue with this case, he will ultimately have a total of $350 withdrawn from his

1

Plaintiff Kidd has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Grissom from the case, which I will
deny as moot. I would usually sever joint plaintiffs’ cases from each other if the plaintiffs no
longer agreed to litigate the case together, but that is unnecessary in this case because
Grissom’s failure to prosecute the lawsuit has resulted in his dismissal.

2

income to pay the filing fee. Because it is unclear from plaintiff’s filings whether he genuinely
wants to pursue this lawsuit, I will give him a final chance to explain what he would like to
do. He has two choices:


He can choose to continue with this lawsuit. Funds will continue to be
withdrawn from his prison trust fund account to pay for the lawsuit.



He can choose to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, in which case I will direct the
clerk of court to return all withdrawn funds to him.

I will give Kidd a short time to tell the court which one of these options he chooses. All of
Kidd’s pending motions will be denied without prejudice. This includes a motion for
appointment of counsel, because it is not yet clear whether Kidd wishes to pursue the case,
and he does not need counsel to help him make this choice.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Terrance Grissom is DISMISSED from the case. The case will proceed
with plaintiff Robert Kidd as the sole plaintiff.
2. All of plaintiff Kidd’s pending motions are DENIED without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff Kidd may have until July 15, 2016, to inform the court whether he would
like to continue with this lawsuit.
Entered June 27, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3