Hollins, Emon et al v. Meli, Anthony et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting plaintiff Emon V. Hollins's 20 motion to screen his second amended complaint.Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed on Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against defendants Swingen, Olig, Standish, Waller and < p>Plaintiff may have until October 15, 2018, to complete service of his discovery requests aimed at identify defendant Doe. Plaintiff may have until December 3, 2018 to submit a supplement to the complaint, naming the Doe defendant.Defendant Meli is DISMISSED from the case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/1/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

EMON V. HOLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ANTHONY MELI, LT. WALLER, C.O. OLIG,
C.O. SWINGEN, C.O. STANDISH, and JOHN DOE,

17-cv-757-jdp

Defendant.
Plaintiff Emon V. Hollins, appearing pro se, brings claims that defendant prison officials
violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by keeping him in
an unsanitary cell smelling strongly of feces and urine. I previously granted Hollins leave to
proceed on claims against defendant correctional officers Swingen, Olig, Standish, and Waller.
Dkt. 8. Hollins also named Anthony Meli and John Doe as defendants, but he did not explain
what role those two defendants played in disregarding his cell conditions. Id. at 4. I gave him
a chance to amend his complaint to explain his claims against those defendants. Id.
Hollins has filed two amended complaints, Dkt. 18 and Dkt. 19, and a motion to rule
on the second amended complaint. Dkt. 20. I will disregard the first amended complaint and
consider the second amended complaint to be the operative pleading in the case.
Hollins has removed Meli from the caption, so I will dismiss him from the case. Hollins’s
allegations are virtually identical to those in his original complaint. But he no longer believes
that defendant Swingen was the officer who initially placed him in the dirty cell, instead calling
that defendant John Doe. He now alleges that the Doe defendant, along with previous
defendants Swingen, Olig, Standish, and Waller, failed to adequately help him with the

problem. And he originally alleged that he spent about three weeks in the cell, but he now
alleges that he spent 46 days in the cell.
I will grant Hollins leave to proceed on his new claims against the Doe defendant, while
noting the amendment to his claims against Swingen and retaining all of his claims against
Olig, Standish, and Waller. Because Hollins is bringing claims against a Doe defendant, I will
set deadlines for the parties to use the discovery process to identify the Doe defendant and
amend the caption with the proper identity.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Emon V. Hollins’s motion to screen his second amended complaint,
Dkt. 20, is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed on Eighth Amendment conditions-ofconfinement claims against defendants Swingen, Olig, Standish, Waller and John
Doe.
3. Plaintiff may have until October 15, 2018, to complete service of his discovery
requests aimed at identify defendant Doe. Plaintiff may have until December 3,
2018 to submit a supplement to the complaint, naming the Doe defendant.
4. Defendant Meli is DISMISSED from the case.
Entered October 1, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2