You're viewing Docket Item 6 from the case Swenby, Travis et al v. Dunn County Human Services. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 3:12-cv-00351-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



TRAVIS SWENBY and
MICHELLE SWENBY

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

v.

Plaintiffs,

DUNN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,


Defendants.

















ORDER

12-cv-351-wmc

In this proposed civil action, plaintiffs Travis and Michelle Swenby are seeking leave

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Magistrate Judge Crocker has

determined that plaintiffs may proceed without prepayment of costs. The next step is to

screen the complaint to determine whether plaintiffs’ proposed action is (1) frivolous or

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks money

damages from a defendant who is immune from relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Plaintiffs’ complaint will be dismissed without prejudice because the complaint does

not allege any facts. Instead, plaintiffs simply refer to 71 pages of documents, which appear

to be petitions and orders from the Dunn County Circuit Court about the custody of

plaintiffs’ minor daughters. Plaintiffs do not explain how these documents show their rights

were violated.

Plaintiffs’ apparent attempt to incorporate these exhibits as their complaint does not

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which states that a complaint must set forth a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. This

means that "the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant

fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." EEOC v. Concentra

Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). Neither the court nor defendant are

Case: 3:12-cv-00351-wmc Document #: 6 Filed: 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2

required sift through plaintiffs’ exhibits to guess about the nature of plaintiffs’ claims.

Because the complaint does not comply with Rule 8, the court will dismiss it without

prejudice.



Plaintiffs will have until June 28, 2013, to file an amended complaint that complies

with Rule 8. Any amended complaint must contain short, plain statements of fact made in

numbered paragraphs, explaining what happened to make plaintiffs believe their rights were

violated, when it happened and who did it. In other words, plaintiffs should write their

complaint as if they are telling a story to someone who knows nothing about their situation.

Plaintiffs should include all of their allegations in the amended complaint, rather than simply

submitting documents or supplements. If plaintiffs do this, the court will take the amended

complaint under advisement for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If plaintiffs

fail to respond to this order by June 28, 2013, the case will be closed.

ORDER



IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Travis and Michelle Swenby’s complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiffs

may have until June 28, 2013, to submit a proposed amended complaint. If plaintiffs submit

a revised complaint by that date, the court will take that complaint under advisement for

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If plaintiffs fail to respond by that date, then

the clerk of court is directed to close this case for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute.

Entered this 4th day of June, 2013.































BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2