Ziegfield Stardust, Paul-Michael v. Roberts, Angela et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PAUL-MICHAEL ZIEGFIELD STARDUST,
Plaintiff, 	OPINION AND ORDER
v.
25-cv-877-wmc
ANGELA ROBERTS, SOCIAL WORKER ZANK,
JARED HOY, MELISSA ROBERTS, and
CITY OF FOND DU LAC,
Defendants.
Plaintiff 	Paul-Michael 	Ziegfield 	Stardust, 	who 	is 	representing 	himself 	while 	on
supervised release from Jackson Correctional Institution (“JCI”), brings this suit against various
administrators and employees of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and the
City of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights when they
failed to provide him with housing in the City of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin upon his supervised
release from prison. Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee for this action, so the complaint does
not have to be screened under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the
court has the inherent authority to screen the case on its own. 	See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (in forma pauperis statute “authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous
or malicious’ action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the
absence of this statutory provision”); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)
(“district courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non
prisoners alike, regardless of fee status.”). 	Here, the court directed the clerk of court to
withhold service until the court has completed review of the complaint.
On review, the court accepts plaintiff’s allegations as true and construes them
generously, holding the amended complaint to a less stringent standard than one a lawyer
Case: 3:25-cv-00877-wmc Document #: 3 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
drafts. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). Even under this lenient standard,
however, plaintiff’s allegations against the DOC defendants fail to state a federal claim upon
which relief may be granted and his allegations against the City of Fond du Lac are too vague
to meet the pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Accordingly, the court will
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and give him a brief opportunity to file an
amended complaint that fixes the problems with his claim against the city, as set forth below.
OPINION
Plaintiff has filed suit against Supervision Agent Angela Roberts, JCI Social Worker
Zank, DOC Secretary Jared Hoy, DOC Deputy Secretary Melissa Roberts, and the City of
Fond du Lac. He alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by
not allowing him to move into a friend’s house in Fond du Lac and failing to find him adequate
housing, which forced him to live in a tent in the woods. However, plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to be provided with housing or housing assistance upon his release from
prison. 	See Morris v. White, No. 14-cv-1391, 2015 WL 11110944, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7,
2015), aff’d, 607 F. App’x 346 (4th Cir. 2015); Brown-El v. Murphy, No. 11-cv-757, 2011 WL
8879267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2011), aff’d, 460 Fed. App’x 202 (4th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, plaintiff cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim against Roberts, Zank, Hoy,
and Roberts for their failure to find him housing upon his release.
While plaintiff also challenges Fond du Lac’s policy of prohibiting convicted felons from
living in the city if they are not a former city resident and the crime was not committed in the
city, he provides no further detail about the policy and how it was enforced against him.
However, given the Wisconsin DOC Offender Locator database shows that plaintiff is a
Case: 3:25-cv-00877-wmc Document #: 3 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
convicted sex offender in Vilas County, Wisconsin, it is possible to infer that plaintiff is
challenging 	City 	of 	Fond 	du 	Lac 	Ordinance 	§ 	500-15(C)(1) 	(accessed 	at
https://ecode360.com/36716717?highlight=3745&highlight=no&highlight=ord&searchId=
3431940946788064#33518441), which only permits the supervised release of sex offenders
in the city if the offender committed the offense in Fond du Lac County, which plaintiff did
not. 	Courts have allowed plaintiffs to challenge similar types of ordinances under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article I’s prohibition on ex post facto
laws. See Nelson v. Town of Paris, 78 F.4th 389, 393 (7th Cir. 2023); Koch v. Village of Hartland,
43 F.4th 747, 748 (7th Cir. 2022); see also Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 43 (1990) (state
cannot pass ex post facto law that “retroactively alter[s] the definition of crimes or increase[s]
the punishment for criminal acts”). Nonetheless, because the complaint is so lacking in detail,
it is not possible for the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s potential
claims against the city. See Rule 8 (requiring plaintiff to provide notice to defendants of what
he believes each defendant did to violate his rights). 	Accordingly, plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to amend his complaint to provide further detail about the city’s policy and how
it was enforced against him. 	If plaintiff submits a proposed amended complaint by February
3, 2026, the court will review it for potential jurisdictional issues. If plaintiff fails to respond
to this order by that deadline, the case will be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Paul-Michael Ziegfield Stardust’s complaint (dkt. #1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice for his failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Case: 3:25-cv-00877-wmc Document #: 3 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
2) Plaintiff shall have until February 3, 2026, to submit an amended complaint that
omits the Department of Corrections defendants and provides additional details
related to his claim that defendant City of Fond du Lac enforced an unconstitutional
policy against him. If plaintiff submits a proposed amended complaint by that date,
the court will review it for potential jurisdictional issues, but if he files nothing, the
court will dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Entered this 14th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00877-wmc Document #: 3 Filed: 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4