Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Mark K. Anderson, Jr.’s amended prisoner civil-rights complaint because it did not identify the individuals allegedly responsible for failing to protect him from an inmate attack and improperly named the State of Wisconsin and the Department of Corrections. The court denied related motions and granted Anderson a final opportunity to file an amended complaint by March 4, 2026, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal and a potential strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Anderson's proposed amended complaint complied with the pleading rules after he narrowed his claims to allegations that prison staff failed to protect him from an inmate attack.
- Whether the State of Wisconsin and the Department of Corrections could be sued as defendants in this type of prisoner civil-rights action.
- Whether Anderson should receive a final opportunity to amend his complaint by identifying the individual defendants and describing each defendant's alleged conduct.
Holdings
- The proposed amended complaint did not comply with the pleading rules because it failed to identify who allegedly failed to protect Anderson and did not explain what each defendant did to violate his rights.
- The State of Wisconsin and the Department of Corrections could not be sued as defendants in this type of prisoner civil-rights lawsuit.
- The court dismissed the proposed amended complaint but granted Anderson a final opportunity to file an amended complaint that identifies each individual defendant and concisely describes that person's alleged unconstitutional conduct.
Key quotations
“Because Anderson’s amended complaint doesn’t comply with the pleading rules, I will dismiss it. But I will give him a final chance to submit an amended complaint fixing these problems.”
“Identify all of the individuals who he wishes to sue in the caption of the complaint.”
“Describe simply and concisely what actions he believes that each defendant took that violated his rights, using separate, numbered paragraphs.”
Factual background
Mark K. Anderson is incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution. He alleged that prison staff failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate, after abandoning allegations concerning inadequate medical treatment. His amended complaint named the State of Wisconsin and the Department of Corrections but did not identify the individuals who allegedly failed to protect him or describe what each person did; although Sergeant Rohwer had previously been named, Anderson removed him from the caption.
Procedural history
Anderson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, initially alleged that prison staff failed to treat his medical condition and failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. The court dismissed the original complaint because it improperly joined unrelated events and defendants and was too vague, then granted leave to amend. Anderson filed motions seeking clarification or additional time and submitted a proposed amended complaint. The court denied the motions, dismissed the proposed amended complaint for failure to comply with pleading requirements, and granted one final opportunity to amend.