Oswald v. Raasch
2:25-cv-00501
| E.D. Wis. | May 6, 2025Background:
- Daniel Perry Oswald, an incarcerated plaintiff, filed a pro se §1983 lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights during his incarceration at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF).
- Oswald claims he suffered severe withdrawal after his pain medications were discontinued without detox support upon arrival at MSDF, implicating several medical staff members.
- He alleges a correctional officer (CO Guerrero) allowed another inmate to assault him by improperly opening his cell door, violating orders.
- Oswald claims the health services manager and others improperly rescinded his lower-tier housing restriction, resulting in a fall down stairs and further injury.
- Oswald filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel, citing cognitive difficulties after a motorcycle accident.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether diverse §1983 claims involving different events/defendants can be pursued together | Oswald seeks to litigate several unrelated incidents in one case | Not stated | Court held the claims must be pursued in separate lawsuits if unrelated, per Rules 18 & 20 |
| Whether Oswald can proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) | Oswald requests IFP status due to indigency | N/A | Granted; Oswald may pay the fee over time per §1915(b) |
| Whether Oswald should have counsel appointed | Argues his motorcycle accident impairs his ability to self-litigate (memory/communication issues) | N/A | Denied without prejudice; Oswald appears competent at this stage |
| Whether Oswald's original complaint sufficiently identifies defendants and conduct | Oswald names individuals/groups responsible | N/A | Court found the complaint too vague; instructed Oswald to amend to specify individuals/actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standards for sufficient factual allegations in complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires complaints to state a plausible claim for relief)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants must be separated into different suits)
- Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996) (personal liability is required under §1983; no respondeat superior liability)
- Pacelli v. deVito, 972 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1992) (no collective/vicarious liability under §1983)