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

BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,

Plaintiff, v. OPINION and ORDER

CAPT. KEVIN PITZEN and 25-cv-98-jdp WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., proceeding without counsel, is incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). Bradley alleges that CCI staff violated his rights in a variety of ways. But Bradley’s ability to file lawsuits in the court is limited both by statue and by court sanctions. I will dismiss this case because Bradley’s complaint does not comply with these restrictions. Bradley has “struck out” under

(g), which means that he cannot obtain indigent status under § 1915 in any suit he files during the period of him incarceration, except for cases in which he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the lawsuit. See Bradley v. Marchezki, No. 20-cv-1031-jdp,

, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 12, 2022) (discussing Bradley’s three-strike status). Also, because of Bradley’s long history of filing complaints that violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 by containing unrelated claims against different sets of government officials, I sanctioned him by stating that I would summarily dismiss any similarly flawed complaint he submits that clearly violates Rule 20. See Bradley v. Novak, No. 20-cv-328-jdp, Dkt. 27, at 3 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 15, 2020). After Bradley continued to file complaints that did not comply with these restrictions, I barred him further from filing any case-initiating documents other than habeas corpus petitions and complaints in which he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm, even if he prepaid the full filing fee. Bradley v. Barrett, No. 22-cv-239-jdp,

, at *2 (W.D. Wis. May 2, 2022). Bradley’s current complaint again raises multiple sets of claims that do not belong

together in the same lawsuit. Bradley alleges that in 2019 CCI staff falsified the results of a Prison Rape Elimination Act investigation to cover up another inmate’s abuse of Bradley and later refused to provide him mental health care for post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from that abuse. He also states that staff has retaliated against him by issuing him fabricated conduct reports, that they use segregation as a form of protective custody rather than granting his request to be kept separate from another fellow inmate, and that they house him in unconstitutional conditions of confinement. He attempts to bring various constitutional claims and claims under the Rehabilitation Act.1

Bradley asks to proceed under the imminent-danger exceptions to § 1915(g) and my sanctions orders. His allegations that he is being denied mental health care come closest to meeting this standard, but he fails to name as defendants the medical staffers who are responsible for this deprivation. And in any event, Bradley’s complaint does not comply with the filing restrictions that I have placed on him because he is bringing multiple claims that do not belong together in one lawsuit under Rule 20. I will dismiss this case for Bradley’s failure to comply with the sanctions against him. If Bradley files another lawsuit about the lack of

1 In previous cases, plaintiff has called himself Brittney Bradley and the court has referred to Bradley using feminine pronouns. In his current complaint, Bradley uses masculine pronouns to refer to himself, so the court will do the same. mental health treatment, he will need to name as defendants the officials responsible for that treatment.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited screening, Dkt. 3, is DENIED as moot. 2. This case is DISMISSED under this court’s sanctions against plaintiff. 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. Entered October 27, 2025. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge