Dunlap, Anthony v. B.O.P. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTHONY CARLTON DUNLAP, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
B.O.P., DIRECTOR B.O.P., INSPECTOR GENERAL,
WARDEN EMMERICH, THORNBERRY,
ASS. WARDEN ROSENBERG,
AS. WARDEN PALMER, UNIT MANAGER BROSH,
UNIT MGR. SPONSLER, UNIT MGR. WINGER,
HEALTH SERVICES ADM. MALCOM,
ASSIST. HSA LT. KEY, DR. LINDA LINDNER,
DR. SHING, NURSE PRACTITIONER BELL,
IVEST. LT. DENTON, CAPT. MOORE,
LT. STANLEY, LT. JORDAN,
PSYCH DR. PHILLIPON, NURSE FRITCHE,
NURSE NETZER, NURSE KLUMP, NURSE BORRE,
NURSE LINDE, NURSE DEAN, NURSE BOUTIN,
H.I.T. TAUB, CHAPLAIN WILLIS,
TRUST FUND SUPV. DIERKUS,
TRUST FUND SUPV. PATTEN, OFCR. BULA.
EXEC. ASST. FARWELL,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR MATAVOUSIAN,
REGIONAL COUNSEL (UNNAMED),
OFCR. CARTER, OFCR. CORDOVA, OFCR. L. AMES,
OFCR. DERGE, OFCR. VIRCH, OFCR. BORUD,
OFCR. BRETZEL, OFCR. WARNKE,
UNNAMED S.I.S. STAFF,
HEALTH SERVICES STAFF, MAILROOM STAFF,
CORRECTIONAL STAFF,
UNIT MANAGER FLICKNER,
SAFETY OFFICER ORZRICH, OFFICER PARSONS,
LT. RANDALL, DR. B. WILLIAMS,
OFFICER PHILLIPS, COUNSELOR LIND,
NURSE LEVINE, and
MAILROOM & R&D SUPERVISOR MARSHALL,
Defendants.
ORDER
25-cv-371-jdp
Case: 3:25-cv-00371-jdp Document #: 39 Filed: 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Anthony Carlton Dunlap, Sr., proceeding without counsel, is currently incarcerated at
Federal Correctional Institution Beckley. This order concerns Dunlap’s latest attempt at
amending his complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dunlap alleges that when he was at FCI Oxford, staff violated his rights in a variety of
ways. I dismissed his original complaint because it failed to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: he brought allegations about many unrelated events, and his allegations were
too vague to state claims against most of the defendants. Dkt. 23. I later denied his motion for
reconsideration of my dismissal of the complaint. Dkt. 30. Dunlap then submitted a 41-page
amended complaint that I dismissed for continuing to violate Rules 18 and 20 by raising a
variety of claims about unrelated events against different defendants. Dkt. 37. I gave Dunlap
a final chance to submit an amended complaint. Id.
Dunlap has responded with a document titled “amended complaint,” but which
contains no caption of its own and has pagination suggesting that it is a continuation of his
previous amended complaint. Dkt. 38. Even if I considered the new document as a standalone
amended complaint, it has the same Rules 18 and 20 problem as his other complaints in this
case because he sues different defendants about unrelated events. Accordingly, I will dismiss
his latest amended complaint. And as I warned him in my previous order, I will dismiss this
entire case and I will direct the clerk to record a “strike” against Dunlap under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704–06 (7th Cir. 2011) (court should give strike
for failure to correct pleading that violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Case: 3:25-cv-00371-jdp Document #: 39 Filed: 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 38, is DISMISSED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED.
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
4. 	The clerk of court is directed to record a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) against
plaintiff.
Entered February 10, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00371-jdp Document #: 39 Filed: 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3