Scott, Demetric v. Clarke, David et al

Filing 9

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20. Amended Complaint due 1/5/2016. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/10/2015. (jef),(ps)

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

DEMETRIC SCOTT,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER
15-cv-402-jdp

DAVID A. CLARKE, JR., and
JOHN DOE PSYCHIATRIST,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Demetric Scott, a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections currently housed at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, has
filed a complaint alleging that he is being deprived of proper mental health treatment.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed with this case in forma pauperis, and he has already made an
initial partial payment of the filing fee previously determined by the court.
The next step is for the court to screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is
legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for
money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§ 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).
After considering plaintiff’s allegations, I will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure
to comply with Federal Rules of Procedure 8 and 20, but I will give him an opportunity to
submit an amended complaint that more clearly explains the basis for his claims.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff Demetric Scott is a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections currently being held at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF).
On January 21, 2010, plaintiff states that he “went to the Behavioral Health
Complex” and was diagnosed with a host of mental illnesses, including mood swings,
schizophrenia, intermittent explosive disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Plaintiff
was prescribed Depakote and Seroquel. That same day, plaintiff arrived at the Milwaukee
County Jail.
Once plaintiff was at the jail, “pysch social workers” evaluated him, took “this
information back to someone” and his psychotropic medications were adjusted without
plaintiff having been seen by a psychiatrist. Because of the changes to his medication,
plaintiff was “completely unstable.” In this state, plaintiff was involved in two altercations
with other inmates and was placed in segregation.
The remainder of plaintiff’s complaint is written in the present tense, although he
does not explicitly state that his allegations refer to his treatment at MSDF, as opposed to
the Milwaukee County Jail. Plaintiff states that he goes several months without seeing his
psychiatrist and the provision of his psychotropic medication is not monitored. Although
plaintiff’s allegations are somewhat vague, I infer that he is saying that the lack of proper
treatment has resulted in his illnesses becoming worse, including leading him to suffer
suicidal and homicidal thoughts.

2

ANALYSIS
An incarcerated person has the right to adequate medical care, whether that person is
a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. To show that his treatment violates the Eighth
Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, a convicted prisoner must show that he
had a “serious medical need” and that defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to this need.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Pretrial detainees are afforded “at least as much
protection [under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] as the constitution
provides convicted prisoners,” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2005)
(emphasis in original).
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.” Under Rule 8(d),
“each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” The primary purpose of these rules 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).
By stating that he suffers from various mental illnesses, plaintiff sufficiently alleges a
serious medical need. But plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8 by explaining how the
defendants he names in the complaint acted with deliberate indifference toward him. He
names only Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and “John Doe Psychiatrist” as
defendants, and he does not explain what specific actions these defendants took that resulted
in a deprivation of treatment. In particular, § 1983 lawsuits against individuals require
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim, and
supervisors (such as defendant Sheriff Clarke) are not liable just because they oversee a

3

facility. See Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). The few parties he does
name in the body of his allegations (such as the “pysch social workers”) are not named as
defendants.
Plaintiff’s allegations raise a second potential problem: he seems to be asserting a set
of claims regarding his treatment at the Milwaukee County Jail, and maybe an unrelated set
of claims regarding his treatment at MSDF. Combining these allegations in a single
complaint might violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which prohibits a plaintiff from
asserting unrelated claims against different defendants or sets of defendants in the same
lawsuit. Multiple defendants may not be joined in a single action unless the plaintiff asserts
at least one claim to relief against each defendant that arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and presents questions of law or fact
common to all. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). It is extremely unlikely
that plaintiff would be able to join claims about treatment at a county-run facility with claims
regarding a state-run facility.
Because plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 and likely does not comply
with Rule 20 either, I will dismiss it in its entirety. However, I will give plaintiff a chance to
file an amended complaint in which he names as a defendant each jail or prison employee he
wishes to sue and sets out his claims against each of the defendants 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. Plaintiff should simply state (1) what acts he believes
violated his rights; (2) what rights were violated; (3) the specific person who committed those
acts; and (4) what relief he wants the court to provide. He should state the facts of what
actually happened rather than make broad allegations to the effect that his rights were

4

violated without explaining exactly how he thinks his rights were violated. In doing so,
plaintiff should keep in mind that he will not be able to proceed on unrelated claims against
separate defendants in a single lawsuit.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Demetric Scott’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to
comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20.

2.

Plaintiff may have until January 5, 2016, 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 for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

Entered December 10, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5