Matthew X. Winters v. C.O. Peter Bedford, C.O. Ayala, Corporal Macdonald, C.O....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MATTHEW X. WINTERS Plaintiff, Case No. 25-CV-1135-JPS v.

C.O. PETER BEDFORD, C.O. AYALA, ORDER CORPORAL MACDONALD, C.O.

LOESCH, SGT. REINERSMAN, KATHLEEN SUMMERS, CORPORAL JARVELA, CORPORAL RARIE, SERGEANT GRAY, CAPTAIN BERANIS, C.O. DICELLO, CORPORAL WILLSTEAD, LIEUTENANT SCHROEDER, OFFICER LIVINGSTON, and CORPORAL DOBBS Defendants.

Plaintiff Matthew X. Winters, a prisoner proceeding pro se and incarcerated at the Kenosha County Detention Center, filed a complaint in the above captioned action along with a motion to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee, or to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2.

On October 10, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, found that it violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, and allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 12. On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter in response to a limited filing bar, indicating that he wished to proceed with this case. ECF No. 18. This Order screens Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 15.

1. SCREENING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1.1 Federal Screening Standard Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or an 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).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard that applies to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Booker-El v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison, 668 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2012)). A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain enough facts, accepted as true, to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that someone deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that whoever deprived him of this right was acting under the color of state law. D.S. v. E. Porter Cnty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Buchanan–Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009)). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Cesal, 851 F.3d at 720 (citing Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015)).

1.2 Analysis The Court finds that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint again fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. While multiple claims against a single party are fine, a plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against different defendants in the same case. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) and 20(a)(2). A plaintiff may join multiple defendants in a single case only if the plaintiff 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. 20(a)(2); George, 507 F.3d at 607; Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (joinder of multiple defendants in one case “is limited to claims arising from the same transaction or series of related transactions”).

Here, Plaintiff brings claims against fifteen different defendants related to multiple different incidents that took place in different years.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint includes ten different complaints as attachments. ECF No. 15-1. Plaintiff states he wants to “amend and sever into separate lawsuits.” ECF No. 15 at 1. However, the Court previously issued a limited filing bar against Plaintiff to allow him to proceed with no more than two cases at a time due to his litigious filing practices. See ECF No. 17. As such, the Court will not sever Plaintiff’s ten different complaints on its own. Rather than the Court deciding which claim to sever (remove from the case) or which defendants to dismiss, the Court will instead give Plaintiff yet another opportunity to choose which claims he wants to pursue in this case. The Court will give the plaintiff a deadline by which to file a third amended complaint that focuses on the related claim(s) of his choice.

If he wishes to pursue the other unrelated claims, he may file separate complaints regarding those claims only as allowed by the current filing bar.

If Plaintiff fails to file a third amended complaint by the deadline, the Court may dismiss his case for the failure to comply with a Court order. In considering which claim(s) to pursue, Plaintiff may again find the following information useful.

Plaintiff has no inherent constitutional right to a grievance system.

See Owens, 635 F.3d at 953. That means he cannot state a claim against Defendants who failed to process his grievances. Plaintiff is not without recourse though because he may be excused from the exhaustion requirement if he can show that he “properly followed procedure and prison officials were responsible for the mishandling of his grievance….”

See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 811 (7th Cir. 2006).

Except in exceptional circumstances, verbal abuse or harassment from prison officials does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 357–58 (7th Cir. 2015); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), abrogated in part on different grounds by Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 423–24 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc). But when the comments are repeated and of a certain nature, they may increase the plaintiff’s risk of physical or psychological harm from fellow inmates. See Beal, 803 F.3d at 358–59. For example, statements by correctional officers made in front of other incarcerated persons about a plaintiff's sexual orientation could increase that plaintiff's risk of sexual assault or harassment. Id. In that scenario, ongoing verbal harassment may support an Eighth Amendment claim. Id. A prisoner’s claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement is analyzed under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 832, 834 (1994). A prisoner is entitled to live in conditions that do not amount to “punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Detainees are entitled to be confined under humane conditions that provide for their “basic human needs.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones[.]” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1996).

To establish a constitutional violation with respect to an inmate’s living conditions, he must be able to demonstrate both: (1) the conditions were objectively so adverse that they deprived him “of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” and (2) the defendants acted with deliberate indifference with respect to the conditions. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). “Life’s necessities include shelter, heat, clothing, sanitation, and hygiene items.”

Woods v. Schmeltz, No. 14-CV-1336, 2014 WL 7005094, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2014) (citing Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006)); see also Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842–43 (7th Cir. 2013).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” on prisoners. Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001). When a correctional officer is accused of using excessive force, the core inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992); Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 757 (7th Cir. 2010). Several factors are relevant to this determination, including the need for force, the amount of force applied, the threat the officer reasonably perceived, the effort made to temper the severity of the force used, and the extent of the injury caused to the prisoner. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7; Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 504 (7th Cir. 2004). “When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9.

Plaintiff may file a third amended complaint in accordance with this guidance on or before April 30, 2026. When writing his third amended complaint, Plaintiff should provide the Court with enough facts to answer the following questions: (1) Who violated his constitutional rights?; (2) What did each person do to violate his rights?; (3) Where did each person violate his rights?; and (4) When did each person violate his rights?

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not need to be long or contain legal language or citations to statutes or cases, but it does need to provide the Court and each Defendant with notice of what each Defendant allegedly did or did not do to violate his rights.

The Court is enclosing a copy of its amended complaint form and instructions. Plaintiff must list all of the defendants in the caption of his third amended complaint. He should use the spaces on pages two and three to allege the key facts that give rise to the claims he wishes to bring, and to describe which defendants he believes committed the violations that relate to each claim. If the space is not enough, Plaintiff may use up to five additional sheets of paper. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint should not attach multiple different complaints to it and ask the Court to separately analyze them because this would violate the Court’s filing bar.

Plaintiff is advised that the third amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” The third amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints and must be complete in itself without reference to the prior complaints. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056 (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.” Id. at 1057 (citation omitted). If a third 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.

2. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the second amended complaint, ECF No. 15, violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20; Plaintiff may submit a third amended complaint on or before April 30, 2026; Plaintiff is warned that the failure to do so may result on the dismissal of his case for the failure to comply with a Court order.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of April, 2026. \ wee ve.)

J. _Stathe ueller U.S Disttict Judge Page 7 of 8 Plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing Program institutions shall submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail documents to the Court. Prisoner E-Filing is mandatory for all inmates at Columbia Correctional Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.

Plaintiffs who are inmates at all other prison facilities, or who have been released from custody, will be required to submit all correspondence and legal material to: Office of the Clerk United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin United States Courthouse E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. If mail is received directly to the Court’s chambers, IT WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER AND WILL NOT BE FILED IN THE CASE.

Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely file any brief, motion, response, or reply 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. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED ADDRESS TO THE COURT AND MAIL IS RETURNED TO THE COURT AS UNDELIVERABLE, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.