Blackshear, Julian v. Giernoth, Michael et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing the clerk of court to amend the caption for case number 17-cv-735 to add Lieutenant Meyer as a defendant; docket plaintiff's complaint in case number 17-cv-736, Dkt. 1 , in case number 17-cv-735; close case number 17-cv-736; an d credit plaintiff's initial partial filing fee already paid in case number 17-cv-736 toward plaintiff's remaining balance in case number 17-cv-735. Plaintiff will not owe a filing fee for the '736 case. Plaintiff Julian R. Blacks hear's is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff's may have until November 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint that provides a short and plain statement of a claim against defendants. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/31/2017. (jef),(ps)

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

JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN MICHAEL GIERNOTH,
JIM SCHWOCHERT, STEPHANIE HOVE,
WARDEN PAUL S. KEMPER,
DEPUTY WARDEN STEVEN JOHNSON,
JASON ALDANA, M. BONES, CAPTAIN
WIEGAND, LT. AMIN, LT. JOHN/JANE DOES,
SGT. HARRIS, SGT. JOHN/JANE DOE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOES,
M. HAGAN, PhD, L. BUHS, PhD, DR. KOZMIN,
DR. BAAS, DR. M. TOKAR, DR. M. WILINSKI,
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR JOHN/JANE
DOE, MAINTENANCE WORKER JOHN/JANE
DOE, and DR. SPOTTS,
Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-735-jdp

JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN MICHAEL GIERNOTH,
JIM SCHWOCHERT, STEPHANIE HOVE,
WARDEN PAUL S. KEMPER,
DEPUTY WARDEN STEVEN JOHNSON,
JASON ALDANA, M. BONES, CAPTAIN
WIEGAND, LT. MEYER, LT. JOHN/JANE DOES,
SGT. HARRIS, SGT. JOHN/JANE DOE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOES,
DR. HAGAN, DR. L. BUHS, DR. KOZMIN,
DR. BAAS, DR. M. TOKAR, DR. M. WILINSKI,
DR. SPOTTS,
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR JOHN/JANE
DOE, and MAINTENANCE WORKER
JOHN/JANE DOE,

OPINION & ORDER
17-cv-736-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Racine
Correctional Institution (RCI), has filed two proposed complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the hazards present in his
observation cell. Case No. 17-cv-735, Dkt. 1; Case No. 17-cv-736, Dkt. 1. Blackshear has paid
the initial partial filing fee for each action as ordered by the court, so the next step in both
cases is to screen the complaint. 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. § 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 complaints
with these principles in mind, I conclude that Blackshear had failed to state a claim against

2

defendants. But I will join his two cases and allow him an opportunity to file an amended
complaint clarifying the individual defendants’ roles in the events underlying the suit.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Blackshear alleges the following facts in his ’735 complaint. On May 24, 2017,
Blackshear was confined to an observation cell at RCI while on suicide watch. The cell did not
have padding or a security camera, and no one was observing it. Blackshear found a “large sharp
metal bar” in the cell. Dkt. 1, at 6. He told RCI staff about the bar. He later found other
dangerous items in the cell, including needles, a shank, staples, and razor shards. He alleges
that each of the defendants was “indifferent to [his] safety.” Id.
Blackshear alleges the following facts in his ’736 complaint. On May 25, 2017,
Blackshear was confined to the same observation cell at RCI while on suicide watch. The cell
still did not have padding or a security camera, and once again, no one was observing it.
Blackshear found razor shards in the cell. He later found other dangerous items in the cell. He
submitted grievances about the “hazardous material” to defendant prison officials, but they
did nothing. Dkt. 1, at 6. He alleges that each of the defendants “left [him] unwatched/unsafe
and were extremely indifferent to [his] life.” Dkt. 1, at 6.

ANALYSIS
Blackshear’s two complaints concern the same course of conduct and nearly identical
events taking place on consecutive dates. He names the exact same defendants in each case,
with two exceptions: Lieutenant Amin is a defendant in only the ’735 case, and Lieutenant
Meyer is a defendant in only the ’736 case. Blackshear could have brought all of his claims in

3

one case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2). I will consider them together in this order and
join the cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. I will dismiss Blackshear’s complaint
in the ’736 case and direct the clerk of court to docket the ’736 complaint in the ’735 case.
The initial partial filing fee that Blackshear has already paid in the ’736 case will be credited
to his remaining balance in the ’735 case. He will not owe a filing fee for the ’736 case.
Blackshear claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the hazards present
in his observation cell in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. To state a deliberate indifference claim, Blackshear must allege that he
“suffered an objectively serious harm that presented a substantial risk to his safety” and that
defendants knew of and “intentionally disregarded the risk.” Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824,
831 (7th Cir. 2010). A risk of suicide is an objectively serious harm. Id. Here, Blackshear alleges
that he was left unattended in a cell with dangerous items while he was on observation status
or suicide watch. But the details of each defendant’s involvement are unclear. Blackshear has
not alleged how the individuals named as defendants in this suit are “personally responsible
for the constitutional deprivation.” Doyle v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 614 (7th
Cir. 2002). I will give Blackshear an opportunity to amend his complaint to explain what each
defendant knew about the conditions in his observation cell and what that defendant did (or
did not do) to expose him to a risk of suicide. If he chooses to amend his complaint, he must
file an entirely new complaint that replaces his original complaint. He need not cite laws; he
need only describe what each named defendant did.

4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The clerk of court is directed to amend the caption for case number 17-cv-735 to
add Lieutenant Meyer as a defendant; docket plaintiff’s complaint in case number
17-cv-736, Dkt. 1, in case number 17-cv-735; close case number 17-cv-736; and
credit plaintiff’s initial partial filing fee already paid in case number 17-cv-736
toward plaintiff’s remaining balance in case number 17-cv-735. Plaintiff will not
owe a filing fee for the ’736 case.
2. Plaintiff Julian R. Blackshear’s is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
3. Plaintiff’s may have until November 21, 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 October 31, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5