Kreger-Mueller, Valerie v. Djamali, Arjang et al

Filing 9

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint, 5 First Amended Complaint and 6 Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Seal exhibits to complaint, 7 Motion to Stay and 8 Motion for Injunctive Relief are denied. Plaintiff's third amended complaint is due 8/23/2016. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/2/2016. (elc),(ps)

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

VALERIE KREGER-MUELLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARJANG DJAMALI, LISA WALLENKAMP,
REBECCA BADIMASSOUD, MARK OGELSBAY,
PATRICK Q. SHEEHAN, LAURA FISK,
ANNE MECKSHUN, ELIZABETH BRACE,
CHRISTOPER NEITZEL, and BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN SYSTEM,

OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-283-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Valerie Kreger-Mueller has filed a proposed civil action against several
employees of the University of Wisconsin. Dkt. 1, Dkt. 5, and Dkt. 6. She alleges that they
discriminated against her, retaliated against her, violated the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Wisconsin Fair Employment Law, Wisconsin Unfair Labor Practices Act, and the
Family Medical Leave Act. She also alleges harassment and stalking.
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, I must screen her complaint and
dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, or 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. § 1915(e)(2). In addressing any pro se litigant’s
complaint, I must read the allegations made in the complaint generously. McGowan v. Hulick,
612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the complaint, Dkt. 1, the amended
complaint, Dkt. 5, and the second amended complaint, Dkt. 6, I conclude that plaintiff has

failed to properly state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. However, I will allow
her an opportunity to file a third amended complaint.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
The following facts are drawn from plaintiff’s complaints. Dkt. 1, Dkt. 5, and Dkt. 6.
Plaintiff worked as a medical program assistant associate for the University of
Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health from February 6, 2012 until April 22,
2014. In 2014, she was placed on administrative leave and then dismissed. The reason given
for plaintiff’s dismissal was her refusal to participate in a fitness for duty exam.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff’s claim must also be plausible
on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Based on plaintiff’s
complaints, she seems to be alleging workplace discrimination claims on the basis of mental
illness. However, plaintiff’s complaints do not contain enough facts to explain how each
defendant acted or failed to act in violation of her federal or constitutional rights. Nor is it
clear how the any of the employment-related statutes that plaintiff lists apply. Because
plaintiff’s complaints lack sufficient facts to meet the pleading standard of Rule 8, I will
dismiss them. But I will give plaintiff one more opportunity to file a third amended
complaint with more detailed information addressing these concerns.
In her third amended complaint, plaintiff should include specific factual allegations
that tell a story about exactly what happened to her. The complaint should make clear to

2

anyone reading the complaint: (1) what each defendant did to her, and (2) how each
defendant’s action or inaction violated her federal or constitutional rights. Plaintiff should
also be careful to include only claims that are related to each other. In her second amended
complaint, plaintiff seems to discuss matters that are not related to her employment
discrimination claims and do not involve the named defendants.
Plaintiff has also requested that the attachments to her original complaint be sealed
and restricted to court-only review. Dkt. 3. But she has not given any reason why they should
be sealed. Presumably, plaintiff filed these documents with the court because they “affect the
disposition of federal litigation.” In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). This makes
them “presumptively open to public view, even if [plaintiff] strongly prefer[s] secrecy, unless
a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality.” Id. “In short, litigants who enjoy publicly
subsidized dispute resolution should expect public oversight.” City of Greenville, Ill. v. Syngenta
Crop Prot., LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2014). However, based on my review of the
documents, it is appropriate to seal them at this point in the case because they refer to heath
care matters. I will not, however, restrict them to court-only review. Defendants, should they
be served with a complaint in this case, will be entitled to review these materials as they
prepare their defense.
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, Dkt. 8, and a stay of the proceedings until she has
resolved related matters in state court, Dkt. 7. Both motions will be denied because she has
not yet stated a claim to relief. If plaintiff is able to state a claim in her third amended
complaint and is allowed to proceed on her claims, she may move for relief as needed.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Valerie Kreger-Mueller’s complaint, Dkt. 1, first amended complaint,
Dkt. 5, and second amended complaint, Dkt. 6, are DISMISSED for failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to seal the exhibits to the proposed complaint, Dkt. 3, is
DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to stay the case, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 8, is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff may have until August 23, 2016, to file a third amended complaint. If
plaintiff fails to do so by this deadline, I will direct the clerk of court to enter
judgment in favor of defendants.
Entered August 2, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4