Davis, Alonzo v. Department of Mental Health

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint. 2 Amended complaint due 4/13/2015. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/24/2015. (jef: w/ complaint form enclosure ),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALONZO DAVIS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
15-cv-157-bbc
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL
HEALTH DIVISION,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Alonzo Davis has filed a 12-page, typed complaint against a defendant
that he calls “Department of Mental Health Division” in he alleges that he was mistreated
by police officers and medical staff in various ways. Having reviewed the complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, I am dismissing it without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing
an amended complaint that corrects the problems discussed in this order.
A threshold problem with plaintiff’s complaint is that he has not named a proper
defendant. “The Department of Mental Health Division” does not appear anywhere in the
body of his complaint and I am not aware of any entity in Wisconsin with that name. It
may be that plaintiff intended to sue what he refers to as the “Milwaukee Behavioral
Division,” an entity identified many times in the body of the complaint. An internet search
reveals that Milwaukee County has a Behavioral Health Division. Although the Behavioral
Health Division cannot be sued, Milwaukee County can be. Best v. City of Portland, 554

1

F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2009); Chan v. Wodnicki, 123 F.3d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir. 1997).
The general rule is that a plaintiff must identify the party or parties he wishes to sue
in the caption of his complaint. Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551 (7th Cir. 2005).
The court cannot amend the complaint for him. Accordingly, I am dismissing the complaint
and giving plaintiff an opportunity to name the proper party or parties he wishes to sue.
If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should consider several things.
First, to the extent he means to contend that the actions discussed in his complaint violated
his constitutional rights, the allegations in his complaint do not state a claim upon which
relief may be granted against Milwaukee County. A political unit such as a county may not
be sued for a constitutional violation unless the county has a policy or practice that caused
the alleged violation. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
A county cannot be held liable simply because it is the employer of individuals who violated
the plaintiff’s rights. If plaintiff wishes to sue any individuals, he should include their names
in the caption and explain in the body of his complaint what he believes each of them did
to violate his rights.
A more general point is that plaintiff should try to rewrite his complaint so that it is
easier to understand what happened to him. In its current form, it is difficult to know the
scope of his claims. The first eight pages of plaintiff’s complaint consist primarily of
descriptions of general legal concepts and citations to Wisconsin case law and statutes. He
does not explain how this information relates to his claims or why he included it. Toward
the end of his complaint, under the heading “statement,” he includes a number of allegations

2

concerning health care staff and police officers, though it is not exactly clear how all the
allegations are related.
First, he says that his “honesty about [his] HIV status with the staff at the Milwaukee
Behavioral Division was the only reason why [he] was admitted to Froedtert Hospital
without consent and it was the only reason why [he] was held for 25 days, under accusations
of ‘fever.’” He provides no context for this allegation. He adds that tests approved by staff
at the Behavioral Division left him disabled and unable to walk.
Second, plaintiff says that medical staff tested him for HIV without his consent, even
though he told them that he was HIV positive before the test. He makes this allegation
several times, but it is not clear whether he believes the test is related to the involuntary
commitment or the alleged disability.
Third, plaintiff says that Milwaukee police officers tackled him, handcuffed him and
pointed guns at him without justification after he reported a stolen vehicle at the police
station. He also says that a Milwaukee police officer “falsely detained, imprisoned and sent
[him] to the Milwaukee Behavioral Division . . . for unknown reasons.” He does not say
whether the incident at the police station led to his treatment at the Behavioral Division or
whether that incident is related to his involuntary commitment.
If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should draft it as if he were
telling a story to people who know nothing about his situation. This means that plaintiff
should write out the facts in the order that they occurred instead of jumping back and forth
among different events. To the extend that he is able, he should provide dates for everything

3

he discusses in his complaint and explain how all of the events are related. He should set
forth his allegations in separate, numbered paragraphs using short and plain statements.
After he is finished 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 any necessary changes. To help plaintiff with this process, I have
attached a form that plaintiff may use to draft his amended complaint.
In addition to these general suggestions, there are a number of specific questions that
plaintiff should try to answer in an amended complaint:

•

Plaintiff refers to “the assault and threats that [he] had received from the
Milwaukee police the night before” he went to the police station. How did
plaintiff come into contact with the police the previous night and what
happened that led to the assault and threats? What was the nature of the
assault and threats?

•

Why did plaintiff first have contact with the Behavioral Health Division? Did
he choose to go there? Did police officers take him there? Did the incident
at the police station lead to plaintiff’s being taken to the Behavioral Health
Division? When did this occur?

•

Why does plaintiff believe that his disclosure of his HIV status is the reason
he was detained at the hospital?

•

Did plaintiff receive a physical or mental health diagnosis from health care
staff before or after he was detained? If so, what was the diagnosis?

•

Who made the decision to detain plaintiff at the hospital? What reason or
reasons did plaintiff receive for his detention? What reason or reasons did he
receive for his later release? Be as specific as possible.

•

Plaintiff says that he was detained “16 days longer than the court ordered.”
Did plaintiff have a court hearing before or after he was detained? If so, what
happened at that hearing? Has plaintiff been involved in other court
proceedings related to the events in this case? If so, describe those

4

proceedings and explain how those proceedings were resolved.
•

What particular conduct by health care staff does plaintiff believe caused his
disability?

•

What is the nature of plaintiff’s disability? Does plaintiff’s condition have a
name? What effects does the disability have on plaintiff’s body?

•

Plaintiff says that he discovered that his rights had been violated when he
compared his hospital records to the records of the Behavioral Health
Division. What was in those records that made plaintiff believe that his rights
had been violated?

Finally, if plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must file a document that can
replace his complaint rather than just supplement it. As I have informed other pro se
plaintiffs, "parties are not allowed to amend a pleading by simply adding to or subtracting
from the original pleading in subsequent filings scattered about the docket. If [plaintiffs]
wish to amend their complaint, they must file a proposed amended complaint that will
completely replace the original complaint. . . . [T]here can be only one operative complaint
in the case." Boriboune v. Berge, No. 04-C-15-C, 2005 WL 256525, *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan.
31, 2005).
The reason for such a rule is plain enough. If the "operative pleading" consists of
multiple documents, the scope of the plaintiff's claims becomes unclear and it becomes
difficult if not impossible for the defendants to file an answer. To avoid ambiguity, the
complaint must be self-contained. Thus, if plaintiff files an amended complaint and he
omits any allegations from the original complaint, I will construe the omission as a decision
to remove those allegations from the case.

5

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Alonzo Davis may have until April 13, 2015, to file
an amended complaint that addresses the problems discussed in this order. If plaintiff does
not respond by that date, I will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and direct the clerk of court to close the case.
Entered this 24th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

6