Pabon Gonzalez, Helson et al v. All C/O staff of D.O.C. Dept. in Wis.

Filing 11

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20. Amended Complaint due 9/19/2018.Plaintiff's motion regarding access to the court, Dkt. 10 , is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 7 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/30/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

HELSON PABON GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION & ORDER
ALL C/O IS STAFF OF D.O.C. DEPT. OF WIS. WHO
I MENTION IN PARTIES B. STATEMENT OF
CLAIM IN FIRST 1. QUESTION,

18-cv-162-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Helson Pabon Gonzalez, appearing pro se, is a prisoner at the Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility. In this case, one of a series of lawsuits he has recently filed, he names
as defendants a list of various staff members involved in a long series of events that appear to
be unrelated to each other. Pabon Gonzalez has made an initial partial payment of the filing
fee as previously directed by the court.
The next step is for me to screen Pabon Gonzalez’s complaint and dismiss any portion
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
asks for monetary damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. In doing so, I must read Pabon Gonzalez’s pro se complaint
generously. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (per curiam).
I will dismiss the complaint because it suffers from severe problems that violate the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It contains far too many different defendants—so many that
he does not attempt to name them in the caption—for me to think that claims against them
could belong in the same lawsuit. His allegations are also threadbare: he lists dozens of inmate
grievances he has filed and then attaches almost 400 pages of documents. But neither the court

nor defendants must sift through a stack of documents to understand what the lawsuit is about.
At most it appears that he has submitted a long list of unrelated events. This means that his
complaint violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in two ways: many of his allegations
lack sufficient detail to tell what actions he believes violated his rights, and he seeks relief
against different defendants about unrelated events. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 20.
I will give Pabon Gonzalez a short time to decide whether he wishes to continue
pursuing this lawsuit. If he would like to continue, he must submit an amended complaint that
sticks to one set of events and names as defendants the prison officials involved in violating his
rights with regard to that set of events. If Pabon Gonzalez fails to submit an amended
complaint by the deadline set below, I will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and I will assess him a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
This is similar guidance that I gave him in his first case in this court, see Dkt. 6 in case
no. 16-cv-852-jdp, to which he responded by filing nine more cases over a period of 18 months.
Pabon Gonzalez remains free to file more cases in this court, at least so long as he has not
incurred three strikes under § 1915(g). But he will also incur the responsibility to pay a $350
filing fee for each case, so I encourage him to choose his lawsuits wisely. He has already racked
up $3,500 in filing fees in this court, so he should consider filing new cases only if he believes
that litigating a particular issue is worth incurring an additional filing fee.
Pabon Gonzalez has also filed a motion regarding his access to the court, Dkt. 10, and
a motion for emergency injunctive relief, Dkt. 7. I will deny both motions. I have already
considered similar motions regarding his access to the court in previous cases and concluded
that he has had no problem filing materials here. In his motion for injunctive relief, he states
that prison officials are harassing him by giving him false conduct reports. But I have not yet

2

allowed him to proceed on any claims in this case, and his allegations do not suggest any reason
for the court to take the relatively drastic step of intervening in prison operations.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Helson Pabon Gonzalez’s complaint is DISMISSED under Federal
Rules of Civil Rule of Procedure 8 and 20.
2. Plaintiff may have until September 19, 2018, to submit an amended complaint
that complies with Rules 8 and 20.
3. Plaintiff’s motion regarding access to the court, Dkt. 10, is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, Dkt. 7, is DENIED.
Entered August 30, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3