Ivy, Julius v. Jess, Cathy et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint. Amended complaint due 2/1/2017. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/11/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

JULIUS L. IVY,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER

CATHY A. JESS, JOHN PAQUIN, MARK HEISE,
K. BUSKE, BRUCE SIEDSCHLAG, R. BARTEL, and
MS. RYAN,

16-cv-825-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Julius L. Ivy, an inmate incarcerated at the Fox Lake Correctional
Institution, brings this civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various prison
officials are unconstitutionally depriving him of opportunities to participate in programs that
could earn him early release. Ivy has paid the initial partial filing fee for this action as ordered
by the court.
The next step is for me 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, 520-21 (1972). After reviewing the
complaint with this principle in mind, I conclude that Ivy has failed to state a claim against
defendants. But I will give Ivy an opportunity to file an amended complaint that more clearly
explains the basis for his claims and the individual defendants’ roles in the events underlying
this suit.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
I draw the following facts from Ivy’s complaint. Dkt. 1.
Plaintiff Julius L. Ivy is a prisoner at the Fox Lake Correctional Institution. Ivy wishes
to participate in the Challenge Incarceration Program or Earned Release Program, two early
release programs that can reduce the period of incarceration for certain prisoners. The
Program Review Committee has blocked Ivy from participating in these programs because of
his sentence structure. By this, I take Ivy to mean the length of his term of incarceration.

ANALYSIS
Ivy purports to bring Fourth and Fourteenth amendment claims against defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.” Ivy’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 in two ways: First, Ivy’s complaint fails
to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against any defendant because he does not explain
how any of the named defendants were personally involved in the events underlying this suit.
Second, as discussed in greater detail below, it is not clear how the decision to keep Ivy out of
the early release programs would violate Ivy’s rights or any federal law. I will give Ivy an
opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts that do state a claim. If he chooses to
amend his complaint, he must file an entirely new complaint that replaces his original
complaint. Before amending his complaint, he should carefully read the explanation below,
which outlines the problems in his complaint. He should draft his amended complaint as if
he were telling a story to people who know nothing about his situation. He should explain
the specific actions each defendant took that he believes violated his rights. Ivy need not cite

2

specific laws; he need only describe what each named defendant did and how it violated his
rights.
I interpret Ivy’s complaint as attempting to bring a Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claim against defendants for barring him from participating in programs that could
earn him early release from prison. The purpose of the equal protection clause “is to secure
every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination.”
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (quoting Sioux City
Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441, 445 (1923)). To state a claim under the equal
protection clause, a plaintiff must allege that he “has been intentionally treated differently
from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in
treatment.” Id. The problem for Ivy is that he does not explain how defendants’
determination that he is ineligible for early release programs is intentional and arbitrary
discrimination. The state may rationally consider the length of a prisoner’s sentence, a
measure of how serious the state considers his crime to be, when determining eligibility for
participation in programs that may allow an opportunity for early release from prison. Ivy has
not stated a claim for relief under the equal protection clause.
Ivy also contends that defendants’ actions violate the Fourth Amendment, which
concerns searches and seizures. But Ivy does not provide any explanation of how the Fourth
Amendment could apply to his claims and I can think of none, so I will deny him leave to
proceed on a claim under this theory.
Finally, Ivy also contends that defendants’ actions violate Wisconsin state law. A
complaint under state law only does not establish federal jurisdiction unless Ivy can establish
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists when: (1) the

3

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (2) the parties are citizens of different states.
Ivy does not allege that he and defendants are citizens of different states. This court may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are “so related” to a plaintiff’s
federal law claims that they “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a). But Ivy has not yet stated a claim for relief under federal law, so for now at least I
must deny him leave to proceed on any potential state law claims.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Julius L. Ivy’s Fourth Amendment claim is DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. The remaining claims in Ivy’s complaint, Dkt. 1, are DISMISSED for failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
3. Plaintiff may have until February 1, 2017, to file an amended complaint that
provides a short and plain statement of a claim against defendants. If plaintiff
submits an amended complaint as required by this order, I will take that
complaint under advisement for screening. If plaintiff fails to respond to this order
by the deadline, I will dismiss the case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
Entered January 11, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4