Dangerfield, Alphoncy v. Waterman et al

Filing 9

ORDER that plaintiff Alphoncy Dangerfield may have until July 26, 2017, to identify for the court which claims he wishes to pursue under this case number, and whether he wishes to pursue his other set of claims in a new lawsuit. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/5/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

ALPHONCY DANGERFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MS. WATERMAN, J. LABELLE, S. ANDERSON,
E. RAY, GARY BOUGHTON, N. BETHEL,
DEPUTY WARDEN WINKLESKI, T. BONSON,
MS. SUTTER, J. HILL, MS. DICKMAN,
JIM SCHWOCHERT,
JOHN DOE CASHIER UNIT SUPERVISOR,
CATHY JESS, and KELLI WILLARD WEST,

OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-230-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Alphoncy Dangerfield, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility,
has filed a complaint alleging that prison officials failed to properly treat his symptoms of
hyperglycemia and have not provided him with comfort items to relieve the pain he suffers,
and that other prison officials have withdrawn funds from his accounts to pay court debts that
he has already fully paid. Dangerfield was granted in forma pauperis status and then paid the
entire $350 filing fee for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis.
The next step is for the court to screen the complaint and dismiss any portions that are
legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or ask for
money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 & 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, 521 (1972) (per
curiam).

My review of the complaint shows that Dangerfield is attempting to bring two different
types of claims against different sets of prison officials, which violates Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20 by joining claims together that do not belong in the same lawsuit. Defendants
may be joined in one lawsuit only if the claims against them arise out of the same transactions
or occurrences and present questions of law or fact that are common to them all. George v.
Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Dangerfield brings claims that belong in two
separate lawsuits:
Lawsuit No. 1: prison officials failed to properly treat his
symptoms of hyperglycemia and have not provided him with
comfort items to relieve the pain he suffers.
Lawsuit No. 2: other prison officials have withdrawn funds from
his accounts to pay court debts that he has already paid off.
I will give Dangerfield a short time to respond to this order by explaining which of these
two lawsuits he wishes to pursue under this case number. After he has informed the court of
his choice, I will treat the portion of his complaint pertaining to those claims as the operative
pleading, and will screen the claims he has chosen. If Dangerfield also wishes to proceed on the
set of claims he does not choose for this lawsuit, he should inform the court of that fact, but
he will then owe the court a separate filing fee for the second lawsuit.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Alphoncy Dangerfield may have until July 26, 2017, to
identify for the court which claims he wishes to pursue under this case number, and whether
he wishes to pursue his other set of claims in a new lawsuit.
Entered July 5, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3