Kretlow, Bernard v. Washington, Tarrell
Filing
14
ORDER denying Plaintiff Bernard Kretlow leave to proceed on his claims. Plaintiff's complaint, Dkt. 1 , is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may have until January 9, 2017, to choose which potential lawsuits he wants to pursue and file an amended complaint in each case, as directed within this opinion. Plaintiff's motion for an order redirecting his legal loan to the Wisconsin Resource Center, Dkt. 12 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/16/2016. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BERNARD KRETLOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION & ORDER
TARRELL WASHINGTON,
16-cv-582-jdp
Defendant.
BERNARD KRETLOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPT. MICHAEL SCHULTZ, LT. ELSINGER,
CAPT. BAUMANN, DGT. CUMMINGS,
SGT. ROZMARYNSKI, OFFICER NORTON,
OFFICER WASIELEWSKI, DR. ALLEN,
DR. S. GARLAND, and LUTSEY,
OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-583-jdp
Defendants.
Plaintiff Bernard Kretlow, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Green Bay
Correctional Institution (GBCI), brings two lawsuits: one, 16-cv-582, against a fellow inmate,
Tarrell Washington; the other, 16-cv-583, against a number of GBCI employees. Kretlow has
made an initial partial payment of the filing fee for these lawsuits, as previously directed by
the court.
The next step in the cases is to screen the complaints. In doing so, I must 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. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Because Kretlow is a pro se litigant, I must read his
allegations generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (per curiam). I have
reviewed the complaints in both cases. The allegations in the two complaints overlap. I
conclude that Kretlow has failed to state a claim for relief in the ‘582 case, and that in the
‘583 case, he is alleging at least four kinds of claims that do not appear to be related to each
other, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. I will allow him an opportunity to
choose which claims he wishes to pursue in these cases and to submit amended complaints
for those claims. I will also deny Kretlow’s motion, which he filed in both cases, for a court
order redirecting his legal loan to the Wisconsin Resource Center.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
I draw the following facts from Kretlow’s complaints.
In the ‘582 case, Kretlow alleges that from May to August 2016, Tarrell Washington,
Kretlow’s fellow inmate, threatened to kill him and threatened to harass his mother and his
friend’s grandmother over the phone and then rape and kill them when he is released from
prison.
In the ‘583 case, Kretlow alleges that in July and August 2016, Officer Norton
laughed about “Washington giving [Kretlow’s] info. out” and later told Kretlow that he was
the next to get gassed. Dkt. 1, at 4. Kretlow also alleges that, in separate incidents in August
2016, Captain Michael Schultz, Lieutenant Elsinger, Sergeant Rozmarynski, and Sergeant
Cummings allowed Kretlow to keep banging his head. Captain Baumann “manipulated”
Kretlow to recant a letter he wrote. Dkt. 1, at 3. Officer Wasielewski “played with meds
trying too give [Kretlow] some of them,” Dkt. 1, at 4, and disrespected him. Dr. Allen and
2
Dr. S. Garland refused to order a new CPAP machine for Kretlow when Kretlow destroyed
his first machine.
ANALYSIS
Both of Kretlow’s complaints have problems that he will have to fix.
I begin with Kretlow’s complaint in the ‘582 case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
requires that Kretlow’s complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Kretlow alleges that Washington threatened to kill him
and rape and kill his family and friends. These are serious threats that could violate Kretlow’s
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment if they were made by
a prison guard or other state official. See Dobbey v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 574 F.3d 443, 445 (7th
Cir. 2009). But Washington is not a state official, he is an inmate. Kretlow has not alleged
facts showing that Washington acted “under color of state law,” as required to proceed under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2010). I see no federal
cause of action that Kretlow’s allegations support.
And even if Kretlow’s complaint stated a claim for relief under Wisconsin law, this
court cannot consider a case involving only state law claims unless Kretlow can establish
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists when: (1)
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (2) the parties are citizens of different
states. Kretlow does not allege that he and Washington are citizens of different states, and he
seeks no monetary damages, so this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a state law claim.
Kretlow has not stated a claim for relief under Rule 8 in the ‘582 case, so I must dismiss this
complaint.
3
I turn now to Kretlow’s complaint in Schultz, No. 16-cv-583. Kretlow has combined
into one lawsuit several different claims against different defendants regarding different
incidents: (1) allegations that Officer Norton threatened Kretlow and laughed when
Washington distributed Kretlow’s information; (2) allegations that Captain Michael Schultz,
Lieutenant Elsinger, Sergeant Rozmarynski, and Sergeant Cummings did not stop Kretlow
from banging his head; (3) allegations that Dr. Allen and Dr. S. Garland did not order a new
CPAP machine; and (4) allegations that Officer Wasielewski administered medicine to
Kretlow without his consent. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, multiple claims
against different sets of defendants may be joined in one lawsuit only if they arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence and present questions of law or fact that are common to them
all. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). He cannot proceed on all these claims
together because he has not explained how they are connected.
The potential state law claim Kretlow attempts to bring against Washington in the
‘582 case does appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as his claim against
Officer Norton in the ‘583 case. Reviewing all of Kretlow’s allegations in both lawsuits, and
without taking any position on the relative merit of the opinions, I identify the following
potential lawsuits that Kretlow may choose to pursue:
Lawsuit 1: Allegations against Officer Norton threatening
Kretlow and laughing at Washington’s actions, and a state
assault claim against Washington.
Lawsuit 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims
against Captain Michael Schultz, Lieutenant Elsinger, Sergeant
Rozmarynski, and Sergeant Cummings for not stopping Kretlow
from banging his head.
Lawsuit 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims
against Dr. Allen and Dr. S. Garland for not ordering a new
CPAP machine.
4
Lawsuit 4: A Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against
Officer Wasielewski for administering medicine to Kretlow
without his consent.
Kretlow only has two cases currently open, so he must choose which two of these four
potential lawsuits he wants to pursue.
There are more problems with each of the potential lawsuits listed above: none of
them state a claim for relief as required by Rule 8. When Kretlow chooses which two
potential lawsuits he wishes to pursue, he should draft two amended complaints, one for each
lawsuit. He should write each amended complaint as if he were telling a story to people who
know nothing about his situation. He should state (1) what acts he believes violated his
rights; (2) what rights were violated; (3) the specific person who committed each of those
acts; and (4) what relief he wants the court to provide.
Before I can screen the merits of any of his claims, Kretlow must respond to this order
and explain how he would like to proceed. He must choose one of the four potential lawsuits
listed above to pursue using case number 16-cv-582 and one to pursue using case number 16cv-583. He must file amended complaints in each case by January 9, 2017, or I will dismiss
both cases.
For the lawsuits he does not pick for the ‘582 and ‘583 cases, he faces another choice:
He may choose to pursue the other lawsuits, but he will be required to pay another filing fee
of $41.09 for each suit. He may also be subjected to a separate strike under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) for each lawsuit that he pursues if it is later dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Once he receives three strikes, he may not proceed in new
lawsuits without first paying the full filing fee, except in very narrow circumstances. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Alternatively, Kretlow may choose to dismiss the lawsuits that he does not
5
pursue under these case numbers. If he chooses this option, he will not owe an additional
filing fee or face a strike for the lawsuits that he dismisses. The dismissals would also be
without prejudice, so Kretlow would be able to file those lawsuits another time, provided that
he files them before the statute of limitations has run. Kretlow must inform the court of his
choice by January 9, 2017.
Finally, I will deny Kretlow’s motions for a court order redirecting his legal loan to the
Wisconsin Resource Center. Dkt. 12 in the ‘582 case and Dkt. 12 in the ‘583 case. It is
generally this court’s policy to not interfere with the state’s legal loan program; the question
is whether the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has provided Kretlow with the ability to
access this court. There is nothing to suggest that Kretlow has had insufficient resources to
litigate this case.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Bernard Kretlow is DENIED leave to proceed on his claims in each of the
above-captioned cases, and plaintiff’s complaints, Dkt. 1, are DISMISSED for
failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff may have until January 9, 2017, to choose which potential lawsuits he
wants to pursue and file amended complaints in each case, as directed in the
opinion above. Should plaintiff fail to submit amended complaints by this
deadline, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment dismissing the cases.
6
3. Plaintiff’s motions for an order redirecting his legal loan to the Wisconsin
Resource Center, Dkt. 12, are DENIED.
Entered December 16, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?