McCann, Derrick v. Doyle, Gwen

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Amended complaint due 6/1/2016. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/11/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

DERRICK MCCANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER
15-cv-104-jdp

GWEN M. DOYLE,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Derrick McCann, a Madison resident, has filed this proposed civil action in
which he states that defendant Gwen Doyle, a “family case manager” involved in a
Milwaukee County child protective services case, discriminated against him based on his race.
The court has already concluded that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis in this case
without prepayment of any portion of the $350 filing fee.
The next step is for the court to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
asks for monetary damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages.
28 U.S.C. § 1915. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, I must read the allegations of
the complaint generously, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), and
accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 463 (7th Cir.
2010).
After reviewing plaintiff’s complaint with these principles in mind, I conclude that it
must be dismissed for failure to satisfy the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. I will give plaintiff an opportunity to correct these problems.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
I draw the following facts from plaintiff’s complaint and the other recent cases he has
filed in this court. Plaintiff Derrick McCann is a Madison resident who is the father of two
children (now aged 12 and 14) with Chelsea Lloyd. Plaintiff, who is black, does not live with
Lloyd, who is white.
Plaintiff was involved in a paternity case regarding the children in the circuit court for
Dane County (case no. 04PA590), but eventually his children were the subject of a separate
Milwaukee County protective services case (case no. 13JC2603). The record of this case is
not available on the state’s online circuit court database. I take plaintiff to be saying that
defendant Gwen Doyle, who worked as a “family case manager,” operated as something akin
to a social worker in the Milwaukee County case. Plaintiff says that Doyle “stereotyped . . .
and judged [him and] failed to protect [his] children.” Dkt. 1, at 2. Doyle was aware that his
children were not safe in the care of Lloyd and Lloyd’s mother, yet still “gave [them] her
trust.” Id.
Despite plaintiff having completed a court-ordered fatherhood program, defendant
worked to keep the children out of plaintiff’s custody, even after Lloyd lost custody of them.
Plaintiff did not receive any visitation or placement rights. The children ultimately suffered
abuse while out of plaintiff’s custody.

ANALYSIS
As with plaintiff’s other pending lawsuit about the custody, placement, and welfare of
his children, McCann v. Family Court Counseling Service, 15-cv-093-jdp (W.D. Wis.), I take
plaintiff to be attempting to bring claims for damages against defendant under 42 U.S.C.

2

§ 1983, for depriving him of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection
while she acted under color of state law. But as with the ’093 case, plaintiff fails to
adequately explain what defendant did to violate his rights. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint “must be presented with intelligibility
sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if
so what it is.” Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1994).
Similar to the ’093 case, plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Doyle are mostly
vague and conclusory. Plaintiff says that defendant sided with Lloyd in the Milwaukee
County protective services case and failed to protect his children. But he does not explain
precisely what he means by this, by saying what defendant did to side with Lloyd, or how her
actions placed the children in danger. If all of Doyle’s actions were performed in a role as a
social worker within the context of an ongoing child protective services case, it is doubtful
that plaintiff will be able to bring any claims against her. See Millspaugh v. County Dept. of
Public Welfare of Wabash County, 937 F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir. 1991) (“social workers and
like public officials are entitled to absolute immunity in child custody cases on account of
testimony and other steps taken to present the case for decision by the court”).
But without knowing exactly what plaintiff is saying defendant did to violate his
rights, I will not immediately dismiss the case. Instead, I will dismiss his complaint for
violating Rule 8, and give him a chance to file an amended complaint setting out his claims
against defendant in short and plain statements. He should draft his amended complaint as if
he were telling a story to people who know nothing about his situation or the Milwaukee
County litigation. Plaintiff should explain the specific actions defendant took that he believes

3

violated his rights. If plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint by the deadline set
forth below, I will dismiss the case for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Derrick McCann’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Plaintiff may have until June 1, 2016, to submit a proposed amended
complaint more clearly detailing his claims as discussed above. If plaintiff
submits a proposed amended complaint as required by this order, I will take
that complaint under advisement for screening. If plaintiff fails to respond to
this order by the deadline, I will dismiss this case for plaintiff’s failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Entered May 11, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4