Williams, Travis v. Syed, Salam et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting Plaintiff Travis Williams's 14 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying without prejudice 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Williams may have until July 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint that complies with th e requirements of this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 as set forth in this opinion. Williams may also have until July 21, 2017, to advise the court whether he wishes to pursue any of his other, unrelated claims in other lawsuits under separate case numbers. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Procedures for filing motions for injunctive relief) (jef),(ps)

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

TRAVIS D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
16-cv-474-wmc
DR. SALAM SYED, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Travis D. Williams, a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections, has submitted a proposed civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.

In his 80-page complaint, Williams names 57 defendants.

Since filing his

complaint, he filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint into Four Separate
Complaints (dkt. #14), and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. #18). Williams
has already been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and made an initial partial
payment of the filing fee. The next step normally would be to permit him to amend his
complaint and then screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but because Williams’
complaint so clearly violates Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
will instead grant his motion to amend, instruct him on how he may proceed, and deny
his motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice.
As Williams acknowledges in his motion to amend, his complaint contains
multiple, unrelated claims against different defendants.

Accordingly, Williams must

choose which lawsuit he wishes to pursue as Case No. 16-cv-474. Once Williams has
made his selection, the court will then screen that action under § 1915A. The other,

unrelated claims will be dismissed without prejudice, permitting Williams to pursue them
in separate lawsuits.
CLAIMS
Williams is presently confined at the Columbia Correctional Institution (“CCI”).
For the most part, the named defendants are medical personnel and officials employed by
the DOC at CCI, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution and
in Madison, Wisconsin. He also names medical personnel at private institutions located
in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Williams seeks to bring claims under the First, Fourth, Eighth, Eleventh and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, as
well as state negligence and malpractice law.

His claims appear to arise from:

(1)

treatment related to his physical and psychological problems while he was incarcerated at
Dodge and CCI from 2014 to present, (2) his transfer from Dodge to CCI, (3) the
manner in which various DOC employees handled his inmate complaints, (4) his ability
to pursue civil lawsuits, (5) the conditions of his cell and (6) denial of his requests to see
a Jehovah’s Witness clergy member.

OPINION
Rule 20 prohibits a plaintiff from asserting unrelated claims against different
defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit.

More specifically, multiple

defendants may not be joined in a single action unless: (1) the plaintiff asserts at least
one claim to relief against each defendant that arises out of the same transaction or
2

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) presents questions of law or
fact common to all.

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If the

requirements of Rule 20 are satisfied, then a plaintiff may join additional, unrelated
claims against those same defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
Williams’ complaint unquestionably violates Rule 20 because it includes at least
six unrelated claims against multiple, unrelated groups of defendants and at least two
different facilities over a period of at least two years. As a result, the court will permit
Williams to file an amended complaint in this lawsuit, but he will be limited to just that:
one amended complaint. Therefore, in filing an amended complaint, Williams will have
to choose which related claim or claims he wants to pursue in this case, and the court will
apply Williams’ initial, partial payment and assign this case number to only that
complaint.
Williams may, of course, choose to pursue the other unrelated claims as well, but
must do so separately, paying a separate filing fee for each lawsuit he chooses to pursue.
In addition, he may be subjected to a separate strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for any
lawsuit that is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Once a prisoner receives three strikes, he is not able to proceed with new lawsuits without
first paying the full filing fee, except under very narrow circumstances.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).
Alternatively, Williams may choose to dismiss some or all of the other unrelated
claims. If he chooses this route, Williams will not owe an additional filing fee or face a
strike for those claims. A lawsuit dismissed voluntarily would also be dismissed without
3

prejudice, so Williams could bring it at another time, so long as he files it before any
applicable statute of limitations has run.1
Because Williams faces filing fees and potential strikes for each lawsuit pursued,
he should obviously consider carefully the merits and relative importance of each of his
claims and potential lawsuits before choosing to proceed with respect to some or all of
them. Williams should also be aware that because it is not clear at this time which of his
separate lawsuits he will pursue, the court has not assessed the merits of any of the claims.
Once Williams identifies the suit or suits he wants to continue to pursue, the court will
screen the applicable claim(s) as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
If Williams disagrees with the court’s conclusion that his complaint violates Rule
20, he may raise any objections in his response, but he must still comply with this order
and choose which of the lawsuits he wishes to pursue in this case. If he fails to do so, the
court will dismiss all of his claims for failure to prosecute.
Williams should also take care in filing his amended complaint.

Beyond

narrowing the complaint to only those claims that arise from the same transaction or
occurrence or involve the same question of law, Williams should make his complaint
legible and straightforward, so that the court and any potential defendants can
understand and respond to it. In particular, he should draft it as if he is telling a story to
someone who knows nothing about his situation. This means that he should explain: (1)
what happened to make him believe he has a legal claim; (2) when it happened; (3) who
did it; (4) why; and (5) how the court can assist him in relation to those events. He
The running of the statute of limitations would likely be deemed tolled from the filing of this
lawsuit until the dismissal of the claim, but will begin to run again upon dismissal.
1

4

should take care to identify the specific actions taken by each defendant that he believes
violated his rights. Williams should also explain specifically what relief he is seeking so
that the court may determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
Williams should also set forth his allegations in separate, numbered paragraphs using
short and plain statements. After he finishes drafting his complaint, he should review it
and consider whether it could be understood by someone who is not familiar with the
facts of his case. If not, he should make necessary changes.
Finally, Williams requests a preliminary injunction related to various, unrelated
claims for relief. To prevail on such a motion, a plaintiff must show: (1) a likelihood of
success on the merits of his case; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an
irreparable harm that will result if the injunction is not granted. See Lambert v. Buss, 498
F.3d 446, 451 (7th Cir. 2007). As it is unclear which claim(s) Williams will pursue in
this lawsuit, the court must deny this motion, albeit without prejudice.

Given that

Williams does includes allegations that he is currently in pain due to headaches and a
cyst in his testicle, he may renew his motion if his pain is ongoing and he is in imminent
danger of serious harm. If he does so, in addition to following this court’s procedures for
seeking a preliminary injunction that are attached to this opinion, Williams should be
careful to pursue in his amended complaint claims that would support the injunctive
relief he is seeking.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Travis Williams’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (dkt. #14) is
GRANTED.
5

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. #18) is DENIED without
prejudice.
3) Williams may have until July 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint that
complies with the requirements of this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 as set forth
in this opinion.
4) Williams may also have until July 21, 2017, to advise the court whether he
wishes to pursue any of his other, unrelated claims in other lawsuits under
separate case numbers. Any unrelated claims not specifically identified to
proceed in a separate lawsuit will be deemed voluntarily withdrawn.
5) Should Williams fail to respond to this order by July 21, 2017, the court will
enter an order dismissing this lawsuit as a whole without prejudice for failure
to prosecute.
Entered this 29th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

6