The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LEE ANTHONY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 21-cv-0542-bhl
WARDEN MICHAEL MEISNER, et al.,
Defendants.
SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Lee Anthony Brown, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Oshkosh
Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. This matter comes before the Court on
Brown’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and for screening of the
complaint.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE
Brown requested leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee. A prisoner plaintiff
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00
filing fee over time. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). Brown filed a certified copy of his prison trust
account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, as
required under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). The Court assessed, and Brown has paid, an initial partial
filing fee of $34.13. The Court will grant Brown’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee.
SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court must screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint if the prisoner raises claims
that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b).
To state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, Brown must provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Brown need not plead every fact supporting his claims; he must only “give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
There is a reason Rule 8 specifies a “short and plain” statement. “Rule 8(a) requires parties
to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a
gold coin from a bucket of mud.” U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378
(7th Cir. 2003). “District judges are busy, and therefore have a right to dismiss a complaint that is
so long that it imposes an undue burden on the judge, to the prejudice of other litigants seeking the
judge’s attention.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 844 (7th Cir. 2013). “Length may make
a complaint unintelligible, by scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few
allegations that matter.” Id.
Brown’s complaint is 30 handwritten, single-spaced pages, and includes over 20
defendants (from two different institutions) and numerous unrelated claims. Before this case goes
any further, the Court will require Brown to file an amended complaint that complies with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. The amended complaint must provide a simple, concise, and direct statement of his
claims. Brown does not need to include every detail giving rise to his claims. He need only
provide enough facts from which the Court can reasonably infer that the defendants did what he
alleges they did.
As Brown considers what facts and information to include in his amended complaint, he
should remember that he can join multiple defendants in a single case only if he asserts at least
one claim against each defendant that arises out of the same events or incidents; and involves
questions of law or fact that are common to all the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 20(a)(2); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Wheeler v. Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). This means that Brown cannot bring all of the
claims he identifies (i.e. failure to protect, retaliation, conditions of confinement, denial of medical
care, procedural due process, substantive due process, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress) in the same lawsuit. These claims belong in different lawsuits, for which he must pay
separate filing fees.
The Court is enclosing a guide for pro se prisoners that explains how to file a complaint
that the Court can effectively screen. The Court also will include a blank prisoner amended
complaint form. The Court will require Brown to use that form to file his amended complaint.
See Civil L. R. 9 (E.D. Wis.). If Brown believes he needs more space than is available on the
blank prisoner amended complaint form, he may attach a maximum of five typed, double-spaced
pages. The amended complaint should be no more than ten pages total. Failure to file an amended
complaint may result in dismissal of this action.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED because it violates Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8. Brown may file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this
order by June 21, 2021. If Brown files an amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will
screen the amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. If Brown does not file an
amended complaint by the deadline, the Court may dismiss this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk’s office mail the plaintiff a blank prisoner
amended complaint form and a copy of the guide entitled “Answers to Prisoner Litigants’ Common
Questions” along with this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of the plaintiff shall collect
from his institution trust account the $315.87 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly
payments from the plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding
month’s income credited to his trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each
time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2). The
payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this action. If the
plaintiff is transferred to another institution, the transferring institution shall forward a copy of this
Order along with the plaintiff’s remaining balance to the receiving institution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this order be sent to the officer in charge of
the agency where the plaintiff is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing
Program institutions must submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will
scan and e-mail documents to the Court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is mandatory for all
inmates of Green Bay Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, Dodge
Correctional Institution, Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Columbia Correctional Institution,
and Oshkosh Correctional Institution. Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities must
submit the original document for each filing to the Court to the following address:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will
only delay the processing of the matter.
The plaintiff is further advised that failure to make a timely submission may result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of
Court of any change of address. Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not
being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of May, 2021.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
Brett H. Ludwig
United States District Judge