Kidd, Robert v. Waupun Correctional Institution

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Amended Complaint due 6/23/2017. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/2/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

ROBERT PIERRE KIDD,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAUPUN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-265-jdp

Defendant.
Plaintiff Robert Pierre Kidd, a prisoner at the Waupun Correctional Institution, has
filed a complaint alleging that prison staff gave him incorrect medication, causing him harm.
Kidd has made an initial partial payment of the filing fee for this lawsuit, as previously directed
by the court.
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). After considering Kidd’s allegations, I conclude that the complaint must be dismissed
because it fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but I will give him a chance
to amend his complaint to include this information.
Kidd says that he was given incorrect medication, but he does not explain who gave him
the medication, instead stating only “Nursing Encounter Protocols/C.O.” He names the
Waupun Correctional Institution as the defendant, but he cannot sue the prison or state itself
for the alleged violation here. He needs to name as defendants the officials who decided to give

him the incorrect medication. If Kidd does not know the actual identities of those individuals,
he should refer to these individuals as “John Doe No. 1,” “John Doe No. 2,” and so on. I will
give him a short time to amend his complaint to name the prison officials responsible for this
incident.
At the end of his complaint and in attached documents, Kidd mentions a separate
incident, occurring in 2014, about being pepper sprayed while he was having a seizure. Separate
incidents of misconduct like those discussed by Kidd cannot be brought in the same lawsuit
unless they involve the same defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 & 20. Kidd recently tried to
bring a lawsuit about the pepper-spray incident against defendants Brian Foster and William
Pollard, see Kidd v. Foster, No. 17-cv-6-jdp (W.D. Wis.), but that case was closed after Kidd
failed to pay an initial partial payment of the filing fee. Kidd will not be able to bring his claims
about the pepper-spray incident in this lawsuit unless Foster or Pollard were also responsible
for the medication incident. Otherwise, Kidd may proceed in the 17-cv-6 case only by
submitting his initial partial payment for that case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Pierre Kidd’s complaint in this case is
DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He may have

2

until June 23, 2017, to submit an amended complaint that explains who violated his rights by
giving him the incorrect medication.
Entered June 2, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3