Spencer, Heru v. The Church of Prismatic Light et al

Filing 42

ORDER that plaintiff Heru Spencer's motion to amend the complaint (dkt. # 40 ) and motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. # 41 ) are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/18/2023. (acd),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
HERU SPENCER,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
22-cv-257-wmc
THE CHURCH OF PRISMATIC
LIGHT and TIFFANY WAIT,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Heru Spencer contends that defendants are infringing on his
intellectual property rights in the name “The Church of Prismatic Light” and he is
proceeding against them under the Lanham Act and Wisconsin common law. Spencer has
filed a motion to amend his complaint and a motion for additional preliminary injunctive
relief. (Dkt. ##40, 41.) The court will deny both motions without prejudice.
Beginning with Spencer’s motion to amend, defendants have answered, so Spencer
needs the court’s permission to amend his complaint, which should be freely given “when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff seeks to add new defendants and
claims, but he has not included the original allegations. The court has previously warned
Spencer against piecemeal filings (see dkt. #13), so this motion will be denied without
prejudice. If Spencer means to pursue additional claims, he will need to move for leave to
amend and attach a clearly labeled, proposed amended complaint that includes all of his
factual allegations, old and new, in one document, setting legal arguments aside and
focusing on a timeline of material events and the specific actions taken by each defendant.
That way, if the court were to grant Spencer’s motion, the proposed amended complaint

would replace his original pleading as the operative pleading in this case.
If Spencer decides to renew his motion to amend, he should carefully consider
whether he is naming proper defendants and identify all of the defendants he wishes to sue
in the caption of the amended complaint. He should describe simply and concisely what
acts he believes each defendant took that violated his rights. Spencer should also be aware
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 prohibits litigants from bringing unrelated claims
against different defendants in a single action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20; George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
The court will also deny Spencer’s latest request for preliminary injunctive relief.
On October 24, 2017, the court granted Spencer limited injunctive relief in the form of
requiring defendants to display a disclaimer at the bottom of their website. (Dkt. #32.)
Spencer renews his request for an order prohibiting defendants from using the name “The
Church of Prismatic Light” while this litigation is pending, and he adds a request that
defendants also be prohibited from using variations of the name, including “Prismatic Light
Church.” (Dkt. #41.) The court has already explained why it will not require defendants
to rebrand now across all of their social media platforms (dkt. #32 at 2-4), and Spencer
has not submitted any new evidence establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion
between the religious organizations or that would otherwise support the sweeping relief he
requests.
Regardless, Spencer has not followed the court’s procedures for obtaining injunctive
relief, which the court has previously sent him and instructed him to follow. (Dkt. ##13,
32 at 2.) If Spencer renews his request for additional injunctive relief, he should keep in

2

mind that he will need to demonstrate as a threshold matter: (1) some likelihood on the
success of the merits of his claims; and (2) that he has no adequate remedy at law and will
suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is denied. Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539,
544-45 (7th Cir. 2021); Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meridian Ins. Grp., Inc., 128 F.3d 1111,
1115 (7th Cir. 1997). He must also follow the court’s procedures on motions for injunctive
relief, including submitting a statement of proposed findings of fact and supporting
evidence.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Heru Spencer’s motion to amend the complaint
(dkt. #40) and motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. #41) are DENIED without
prejudice.
Entered this 18th day of January, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3