Alexander, Robert et al v. Foster, Brian et al

Filing 149

ORDER denying plaintiff Robert Alexander's 148 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The clerk of court is directed to return Alexander's books to Dodge Correctional Institution. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/29/2019. (jef),(ps)

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

ROBERT EARL ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATHAN TAPIO and ROMAN KAPLAN,

OPINION and ORDER
17-cv-861-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Robert Earl Alexander is an inmate at Dodge Correctional Institution
(DCI) who has been diagnosed with throat cancer. Litigation of his Eighth Amendment medical
care claims has been stayed while I attempt to recruit counsel. Alexander has filed a document
titled “Order To Show Cause For Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,”
in which he asks me to order more than 20 named individuals to take or be enjoined from
taking various actions. Dkt. 148. Specifically, he asks that I order them to do the following:
(1) allow him to keep two books that have been confiscated by prison officials for being over
the permissible physical size limit; (2) provide him with medication prescribed or
recommended by University of Wisconsin doctors; (3) respond immediately when he activates
his call light; (4) provide his meals on time, with the requested flavors and accurate brand
names; (5) halt all DOC staff and inmates from testing his ability to hear; (6) disclose to him
all discussions between DOC staff and offsite medical personnel pertaining to his health;
(7) stop retaliating against him; and (8) stop allowing staff to swear at him and call him names
other than his given name.
The individuals Alexander names in the caption of this document are not defendants in
this case, and seven of the eight requests Alexander makes are not related to his Eighth

Amendment claims. I nonetheless instructed the clerk’s office to docket the filing in this case,
because Alexander didn’t style it as a new complaint and because one of his eight requests does
pertain to this case and can be addressed here.
Alexander asks that I order DOC officials to provide him with “the prescribed
medication recommended by UW ENT Ear Nose, and Throat Dr. Aaron Wieland” and
“Chemotherapist Oncologist . . . of UW Madison,” both of whom “recommend that [he]
receive morphine and o[x]ycodone 30 mg every (3) three hours.” Dkt. 148, at 1. Alexander has
sought injunctive relief related to the dosage of his pain medications numerous times
throughout this litigation. I have asked Alexander’s providers to respond to his allegations on
multiple occasions. They have repeatedly indicated that, in their medical judgment, the dosages
Alexander is receiving are appropriate, and I have explained to Alexander that I will not
substitute my judgment for that of his treating providers. In his latest filing, Alexander does
not explain what medication dosages he is currently receiving, let alone why he believes those
dosages are inadequate. So I will deny his motion. If Alexander continues to believe that his
current pain medication dosages place him at risk of irreparable harm, he may file a new motion
explaining with specificity why he believes preliminary injunctive relief is necessary. But he
should be aware that I will not override the medical judgment of his doctors.
The other seven issues Alexander identifies in his filing appear are not related to his
deliberate indifference claims against defendants Nathan Tapio and Roman Kaplan, so I cannot
address them in the context of this suit. If Alexander believes they are related to the claims in
this case, he needs to explain how. If Alexander wishes to pursue a separate case (or cases)
about unrelated issues, he must file a complaint (or complaints) containing “a short and plain
statement of the claim,” as required by Rule 8. At minimum, he should explain (1) what acts

2

he believes violated his rights; (2) what rights were violated; (3) who committed those acts;
and (4) what relief he wants the court to provide.
Alexander should be aware that because the issues he raises implicate more than 20
individuals and do not appear to arise out of the same core events, he would likely need to
break them up into multiple lawsuits. Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
joining multiple defendants into one case is appropriate only if the claims against the
defendants arise from the same core events or present questions of law or fact common to all.
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). And under Rule 18, a plaintiff may assert
as many claims as he has against an opposing party, but may not join two cases involving
unrelated claims asserted against different groups of defendants. That is, “multiple claims
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” Id.
Should Alexander choose to pursue additional cases, he will be responsible for paying
the filing fee for each additional suit he files, beginning with an initial partial payment to be
assessed by the clerk of court. Once he does so, I will screen the complaint as required under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, just as I did at the outset of this case.
One final note: Alexander mailed the two books that he complains were confiscated by
DCI staff to the courthouse. See Dkt. 147. Because I am denying this motion as outside the
scope of this case, I am directing the clerk’s office to send the books back to the DCI mailroom.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Robert Alexander’s motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. 148, is
DENIED. If Alexander wishes to pursue new claims against different defendants, he
must file new complaints and pay the requisite initial partial payments.
2. The clerk of court is directed to return Alexander’s books to Dodge Correctional
Institution.
Entered April 29, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4