UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

XAVIER WATKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-C-383

MICHAEL LUENEBURG, et al.,

Defendants.

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Xavier Watkins, who was serving a state prison sentence at the time he filed this action and has since been released, filed a complaint under

, alleging that his civil rights were violated. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee and to screen the complaint. MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee (in forma pauperis). Although Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he remains subject to the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he was incarcerated at the time he filed his complaint. A prisoner plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee over time. See

(b)(1). Plaintiff has 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

(a)(2), and has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of $6.47. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee will be granted. SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT The court has a duty to review the complaint and dismiss the case if it appears that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hoskins v. Polestra,

(7th Cir. 2003). In screening a complaint, I must determine whether the complaint

complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system, Plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must be at least sufficient to provide notice to each defendant of what he or she is accused of doing, as well as when and where the alleged actions or inactions occurred, and the nature and extent of any damage or injury the actions or inactions caused. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

(quoting Twombly,

). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.”

. “[T]he complaint’s allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

(internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s 11-page complaint names 14 defendants and asserts a variety of alleged injustices, including numerous retaliation, excessive force, deliberate indifference, discrimination, and due process claims. Based on the court’s reading of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to improperly bring unrelated claims in a single case. As instructed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, under the controlling principle of Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits” so as to prevent prisoners

from dodging the fee payment or three strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007). Specifically, Rule 18(a) provides that “[a] party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Under this rule, “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.” George,

. Moreover, the court in George reminded district courts that Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies as much to prisoner cases as it does to any other case.

Under Rule 20, joinder of multiple defendants into one action is proper only if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. The court finds that the complaint violates Rules 18 and 20 insofar as it advances unrelated claims against multiple defendants. The George court instructed that such “buckshot complaints” should be “rejected.”

. Therefore, the court will dismiss the original complaint submitted on March 10, 2020. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in the original complaint as described herein. An amended complaint must be filed on or before June 4, 2020. Failure to file an amended complaint within this time period may result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84,

(7th Cir. 1998).

In Duda, the appellate court emphasized that in such instances, the “prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters not restated in the amended pleading.”

(citation omitted). If the amended complaint is received, it will become the operative complaint in this action, and the court will screen it in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Further, Plaintiff is advised that

“creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional violation.” Vance v. Peters,

(7th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under

. See Pacelli v. deVito,

(7th Cir. 1992). Section 1983 does not create collective or vicarious responsibility.

Thus, with respect

to any claim or claims advanced in his amended complaint, the plaintiff must identify the individual defendants and specify the manner in which their actions, or failure to take action, violated his constitutional rights. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint submitted on March 10, 2020 be and the same is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint on or before June 4, 2020, which contains only related claims in accordance with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by June 4, 2020, that complies with the requirements of Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall submit all correspondence and legal

material to: Honorable William C. Griesbach c/o Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin 125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102 Green Bay, WI 54301

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 Green Bay, Wisconsin this 5th day of May, 2020. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach, District Judge United States District Court