Eric Moseley v. Karen, Brett Wilkinson, Jamie Ralph, Tammy Obrien, Tyler Timmerman, Dakota Reynolds, Paige Slater, Naomi Michek, Justice Olmstead, Ethan Bodway, Sarah, and Cameron

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Eric Moseley’s prisoner civil-rights complaint because it was too vague to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and did not explain each defendant’s personal involvement. The court granted Moseley until May 4, 2026, to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its conclusory allegation that defendants violated constitutional rights did not provide fair notice of the claims or explain the factual basis for relief.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim against the named defendants because it did not allege how any particular defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
3. The complaint was dismissed at screening, but Moseley was granted a short opportunity to file an amended complaint correcting the pleading deficiencies.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by providing a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement showing entitlement to relief.
2. Whether the complaint adequately alleged each defendant's personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation.
3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, with leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed