Anthony Carlton Dunlap, Sr. v. B.O.P., Director B.O.P., Inspector General,...

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

ANTHONY CARLTON DUNLAP, SR., Plaintiff, v. B.O.P., DIRECTOR B.O.P., INSPECTOR GENERAL, WARDEN EMMERICH, THORNBERRY, ASS. WARDEN ROSENBERG, AS. WARDEN PALMER, UNIT MANAGER BROSH, UNIT MGR. SPONSLER, UNIT MGR. WINGER, HEALTH SERVICES ADM. MALCOM, ASSIST. HSA LT. KEY, DR. LINDA LINDNER, DR. SHING, NURSE PRACTITIONER BELL, IVEST. LT. DENTON, CAPT. MOORE, LT. STANLEY, LT. JORDAN, PSYCH DR. PHILLIPON, NURSE FRITCHE, NURSE NETZER, NURSE KLUMP, NURSE BORRE, NURSE LINDE, NURSE DEAN, NURSE BOUTIN, ORDER H.I.T. TAUB, CHAPLAIN WILLIS, TRUST FUND SUPV. DIERKUS, 25-cv-371-jdp TRUST FUND SUPV. PATTEN, OFCR. BULA.

EXEC. ASST. FARWELL, REGIONAL DIRECTOR MATAVOUSIAN, REGIONAL COUNSEL (UNNAMED), OFCR. CARTER, OFCR. CORDOVA, OFCR. L. AMES, OFCR. DERGE, OFCR. VIRCH, OFCR. BORUD, OFCR. BRETZEL, OFCR. WARNKE, UNNAMED S.I.S. STAFF, HEALTH SERVICES STAFF, MAILROOM STAFF, CORRECTIONAL STAFF, UNIT MANAGER FLICKNER, SAFETY OFFICER ORZRICH, OFFICER PARSONS, LT. RANDALL, DR. B. WILLIAMS, OFFICER PHILLIPS, COUNSELOR LIND, NURSE LEVINE, and MAILROOM & R&D SUPERVISOR MARSHALL, Defendants.

Anthony Carlton Dunlap, Sr., proceeding without counsel, is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Beckley. This order concerns Dunlap’s latest attempt at amending his complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dunlap alleges that when he was at FCI Oxford, staff violated his rights in a variety of ways. I dismissed his original complaint because it failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: he brought allegations about many unrelated events, and his allegations were too vague to state claims against most of the defendants. Dkt. 23. I later denied his motion for reconsideration of my dismissal of the complaint. Dkt. 30. Dunlap then submitted a 41-page amended complaint that I dismissed for continuing to violate Rules 18 and 20 by raising a variety of claims about unrelated events against different defendants. Dkt. 37. I gave Dunlap a final chance to submit an amended complaint. Id. Dunlap has responded with a document titled “amended complaint,” but which contains no caption of its own and has pagination suggesting that it is a continuation of his previous amended complaint. Dkt. 38. Even if I considered the new document as a standalone amended complaint, it has the same Rules 18 and 20 problem as his other complaints in this case because he sues different defendants about unrelated events. Accordingly, I will dismiss his latest amended complaint. And as I warned him in my previous order, I will dismiss this entire case and I will direct the clerk to record a “strike” against Dunlap under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704–06 (7th Cir. 2011) (court should give strike for failure to correct pleading that violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 38, is DISMISSED.

2. This case is DISMISSED.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

4. The clerk of court is directed to record a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) against plaintiff.

Entered February 10, 2026.

BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge