3:22-cv-00458
W.D. Wis.Dec 1, 2022Background
- Pro se prisoner Dylan D. Tallman sued multiple Dodge Correctional Institution staff for events in 2019; the complaint is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.
- Tallman asserts two largely distinct sets of claims: (A) excessive force, delayed medical care, and negligence by James Armstrong, Tristan Wanden, and Greg Bean after he swallowed a tourniquet buckle; (B) unconstitutional, highly restrictive conditions under a behavior management plan imposed by B. Bartels-Rohbeck, C. Kithindi, Keith Johnson, Jeremy Beck, Brian Greff, Dan Cromwell, and S. Neucomb.
- Tallman contends the claims are related because the buckle-swallowing incident precipitated the behavior plan; the court found that a single shared fact is insufficient to join the claims.
- The court concluded the two sets of claims are improperly joined (different defendants, different legal claims, and different evidence required) and must not proceed together in this case.
- The court ordered Tallman to choose which set of claims to pursue in Case No. 22-cv-458-jdp and to state whether he will (a) file the other set in a separate lawsuit (paying a second filing fee) or (b) voluntarily dismiss the other set without prejudice.
- The court warned Tallman about possible consequences: additional filing fees and potential "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and set a deadline of December 16, 2022 to respond; it did not yet screen the merits of any claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument / Court View | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two sets of claims may be joined in one lawsuit | Tallman: claims are related because swallowing the buckle caused the chain of events, including the behavior plan | Court/defendants: claims are not permissibly joined—different defendants, different claims, different proof required | Court: claims are improperly joined; plaintiff must choose one set to pursue in this case |
| Options for the unselected claims and consequences | Tallman can keep both if related (he argues they are), or drop one | Court: either file the other set as a separate suit (new filing fee) or voluntarily dismiss it without prejudice; warned of §1915(g) strikes | Court: plaintiff must elect by deadline whether to (1) file the other claims separately (and pay fee) or (2) dismiss them without prejudice |
| Whether the court will screen the merits now | Tallman expects merits review | Court: preliminary misjoinder ruling prevents merits screening of both sets | Court: will screen only the claims Tallman elects to pursue; no merits determination yet |
Key Cases Cited
- UWM Student Ass'n v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2018) (authorizes severing unrelated claims)
- Lee v. Cook Cty., Ill., 635 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2011) (permissible to separate unrelated claims/defendants)
- Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2011) (joining unrelated claims is unfair and unmanageable)
- Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff may be required to file separate complaints for different claim groups)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (one lawsuit should not combine multiple unrelated claims)