Williams, Clyde v. Dittmann, Mike

Filing 10

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (Amended Complaint due 7/27/2015.) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 7 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/6/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

CLYDE B. WILLIAMS,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER
15-cv-170-jdp

WARDEN MIKE DITTMANN,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Clyde B. Williams is a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin Department
of Corrections at the Columbia Correctional Institution. He has filed a document styled as a
civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he seems to be saying that he is falsely
imprisoned. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has paid the initial partial
payment of the filing fee as previously directed by the court.
The next step is for the court to screen the complaint and dismiss any portions that
are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or ask
for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read
the allegations of the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).
Plaintiff’s complaint is very difficult to understand because it is filled with citations to
legal authorities without clearly and simply stating how his rights have been violated. He has
also filed a motion for summary judgment that adds little clarity to his claims. Dkt. 7. Given
the information I can glean from his filings and online state of Wisconsin records, this case
cannot move forward without further clarification from plaintiff.

Plaintiff seems to be saying that he was actually acquitted and ordered to be released
from prison, but that he is being falsely imprisoned. He requests release from prison. He also
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. However, he cannot bring claims for both
damages and release from prison in the same case. Plaintiff’s challenge to his confinement
cannot be brought in a § 1983 action. Rather, such a challenge must be brought in a habeas
corpus proceeding. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Plaintiff remains free to file
a separate habeas corpus action, but I will not consider his requests for release in the context
of this lawsuit.
Claims for money damages can be brought in a § 1983 action. But it seems likely that
I will have to dismiss plaintiff’s claims because it appears that plaintiff is still incarcerated
under at least two judgments of conviction, which he mentions in his submissions, Racine
County

case

nos.

1996CF000826

and

2000CF000558.

To

recover

damages

for

“unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” the plaintiff must prove “that
the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determinations, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). If the convictions plaintiff challenges are
still valid convictions, meaning that they have not been overturned, he will not be able to
proceed on claims for wrongful incarceration.
I am reluctant to dismiss the case outright under Heck in case I have somehow
misunderstood the gist of plaintiff’s complaint. Instead, I will dismiss the complaint for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to

2

include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” The primary purpose of this rule is fair notice. 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 Serv’s, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775
(7th Cir. 1994). I will give plaintiff a chance to file an amended complaint explaining his
claims for money damages. He should draft his amended complaint as if he were telling a
story to people who know nothing about his situation. Plaintiff should simply explain what
conviction or length of sentence he believes is invalid and why he thinks this is so, taking care
to explain whether any of his convictions or sentences have been dismissed or amended.
I will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice because it is
premature for him to file such a motion. Should he amend his complaint in a way that allows
him to proceed with any claim, the court will instruct him further on the procedures to follow
when filing a motion for summary judgment.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Clyde B. Williams’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff may have until July 27, 2015,
to submit an amended complaint addressing the problems detailed in the
opinion above. Should plaintiff fail to submit an amended complaint by this
deadline, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment dismissing the case.

3

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.

Entered July 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4