Gregory P. Robinson, Jr. and Nicole Renee Jackson v. Ellen Berz, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed without prejudice a pro se civil rights complaint and supplements filed by Gregory P. Robinson, Jr. and Nicole Renee Jackson. The court identified problems involving unauthorized representation, potential interference with state criminal proceedings, improper joinder, improper defendants, and insufficient allegations, while granting plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. The court also denied a letter of consent and a motion for injunctive relief and set April 29, 2026, as the deadline for filing an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. Robinson could not authorize Jackson to represent him or sign his filings merely because she was his spouse or held a power of attorney; Robinson must personally sign future filings.
2. Plaintiffs may not proceed under § 1983 on claims whose success would necessarily imply that a criminal conviction or sentence is invalid.
3. The federal court could not interfere with Jackson's ongoing state criminal proceeding.
4. The complaint improperly joined unrelated claims against multiple defendants and could not proceed as a single action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
5. A Gang Task Force, police department, or sheriff's department is not a suable legal entity under § 1983; states may not be sued directly on the allegations presented; municipalities require a policy, widespread practice, or policymaker decision causing the constitutional violation; and state-court judges are immune from damages for official judicial actions.
6. The complaint did not state plausible federal-rights claims against the rental-car services, cellular companies, banks, and other entities because it failed to allege what each entity did to violate plaintiffs' federal rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint and supplements could proceed when Robinson failed to sign many filings and attempted to authorize his nonlawyer spouse to sign for him.
2. Whether the § 1983 claims could proceed to the extent they sought to invalidate a criminal conviction or interfere with Jackson's ongoing state criminal proceedings.
3. Whether plaintiffs improperly joined unrelated claims and defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
4. Whether the named Gang Task Force, police department, sheriff's department, state, county, and other entities were proper defendants under § 1983.
5. Whether the complaint stated plausible federal-rights claims against rental-car companies, cellular companies, banks, and other entities.

Disposition

dismissed