Kreger-Mueller, Valerie v. Flores, David et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing plaintiff's 1 Complaint and 4 First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Injunctive Relief is denied. Plaintiff may have until August 23, 2016 to file an amended complaint. 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.
DAVID M. FLORES, JUDGE SHELLY GAYLORD,
JASON HANSON, JUDGE RICHARD NIESS,
JENNIFER GINSBERG, SAFE HARBOR, DANE
COUNTY CPS, DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
DAVID MITCHELL, and COURTNEY PLEIST,

OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-326-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Valerie Kreger-Mueller has filed a proposed civil action against several
defendants, including county employees and departments. Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 4. She alleges
that they are violating her due process rights by not allowing her to leave the county with her
daughter. She also alleges that they have defamed her, discriminated against her, and
defrauded her. She also seeks injunctive relief. Dkt. 5.
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. 4, I conclude that plaintiff has failed to properly state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8. But I will give her an opportunity to file a second amended
complaint and attempt to correct the deficiency.

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). Plaintiff’s complaints do not
say what exactly happened to her. Nor do they explain how each defendant acted or failed to
act in violation of her federal or constitutional rights. Plaintiff refers to proceedings in the
circuit court for Dane County, but it is unclear what is happening in those proceedings.
Plaintiff’s claims involve family law matters. So, there is a good chance that that this court
will not interfere in those proceedings.
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 second
amended complaint with more detailed information addressing these concerns. In her second
amended complaint, plaintiff should explain exactly what each defendant did or failed to do
and how those actions or inactions harmed her. If plaintiff cannot is not able to allege enough
facts to state a claim, then I will dismiss her case.
Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief, Dkt. 3, will be denied because she has not yet
stated a claim for relief. If plaintiff is able to state a claim in her second amended complaint
and still needs injunctive relief, she may move for it as needed.
If plaintiff is attempting to protect her daughter’s rights in this lawsuit, she must be
represented by a lawyer. She may not represent her daughter pro se. Tuttle v. Illinois Dep’t of
Children & Family Servs., 7 F.3d 238 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Although a parent has a right to
litigate claims on his own behalf without an attorney, he cannot litigate the claims of his
children unless he obtains counsel.”); see also Bullock v. Dioguardi, 847 F. Supp. 553, 560

2

(N.D. Ill. 1993) (“A parent may sue on behalf of his or her minor child as a next friend if the
parent is represented by counsel and has no interests that conflict with those of the child.”).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Valerie Kreger-Mueller’s complaint, Dkt. 1, and first amended complaint,
Dkt. 4, are DISMISSED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 5, is DENIED.
3. 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

3