Rogers v. Guzman
2:23-cv-00254-PP
E.D. Wis.Apr 28, 2023Background
- Angelina M. Rogers filed a pro se federal complaint (caption lists three plaintiffs and three defendants) alleging rape, human trafficking, racial and gender discrimination, Ku Klux Klan involvement, and other misconduct by named individuals.
- The complaint is factually vague: uses first-person narrative, lacks dates, locations, specific acts tied to particular defendants, and lists additional allegations in a separate handwritten cover letter naming other individuals.
- Rogers filed a non-prisoner motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee claiming financial hardship but reported monthly income that indicated she could pay the $402 filing fee.
- The complaint sought criminal-type remedies (imprisonment) and asserted constitutional and statutory violations but did not allege that any defendant was a state or federal actor.
- The court treated the motion as by Rogers alone, denied leave to proceed IFP based on her reported ability to pay, and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, concluding amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to proceed IFP (ability to pay) | Rogers claims financial hardship and inability to pay fees. | Rogers reported monthly income (high) and positive cash flow, indicating ability to pay. | IFP denied; plaintiff must pay the filing fee. |
| Failure to state a federal claim | Rogers alleges constitutional violations, human trafficking, rape, and discrimination. | Allegations are vague, lack dates/locations/specific injuries, and do not show defendants are state/federal actors or that Rogers suffered a concrete, particularized injury. | Complaint fails Rule 8/Twombly/Spokeo pleading requirements; dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Request for criminal remedies / prosecutorial relief | Rogers seeks imprisonment and appears to ask the court to redress criminal conduct. | Private litigants cannot prosecute crimes; criminal enforcement is for prosecutors or law enforcement. | Court explained private party cannot seek criminal prosecution; such matters should be referred to prosecutors. |
| Rogers suing or representing others pro se | Rogers indicates she files "on behalf of victims" and lists multiple plaintiffs. | A pro se litigant may only represent herself, not other individuals; complaint only signed by Rogers. | Court treated Rogers as sole plaintiff; pro se cannot represent others, and claims on others' behalf are not maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (plaintiff must allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (creates a cause of action for constitutional violations by federal actors under certain circumstances)
- Maine v. Taylor, 488 U.S. 131 (1988) (private parties have no legally cognizable interest in federal prosecutorial decisions)
- Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997) (even when proceeding IFP, plaintiffs remain responsible for paying filing fees over time)
- Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1986) (individual may appear pro se only for herself in federal court)