Robinson, Gregory et al v. Berz, Ellen et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
GREGORY P. ROBINSON, JR. and
NICOLE RENEE JACKSON,
Plaintiffs,
v. OPINION AND ORDER
25-cv-54-wmc
ELLEN BERZ, et al.,
Defendants.
Gregory P. Robinson, Jr. and Nicole Renee Jackson, proceeding without counsel, are
a married couple both currently incarcerated on drug offenses. Robinson was convicted of
drug distribution in this court in case number 25-cr-11-jdp and is currently housed in the
Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Jackson is being held as a pretrial
detainee at Dane County Jail. In their initial complaint (dkt. #1) and numerous
amendments and supplements, plaintiffs raise several claims against individuals and
entities involved in the investigation and prosecution of their state criminal proceedings,
as well as claims relating to the conditions of their confinement. They have paid the full
filing fee for this action, but because they were incarcerated when they filed it, the court
must screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A. In doing so, the court must accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construe the
complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
Case: 3:25-cv-00054-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
However, the court cannot conduct a proper screening because there are multiple
problems with plaintiffs’ complaint and supplements. First, Robinson did not sign the
original complaint or most of the amendments and supplements. After prodding from the
court, Robinson submitted a signature in some but not all of his filings, along with a “letter
of consent” in which he says that he is authorizing Jackson to sign his name in future filings
as his power of attorney. (Dkt. #10.) That motion will be denied, however, because
litigants in this court cannot consent to have a non-lawyer represent them, even a spouse
who has power of attorney in other matters. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Thus, to proceed further,
Robinson must sign any future filings he submits in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Second, it appears that plaintiffs seek to undo various state-court rulings against
them, which this court cannot do in a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 like this
one. They cannot bring any claim under § 1983 if success on that claim would necessarily
imply that a criminal conviction or sentence is invalid. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
481 (1994).
Third, Jackson’s state criminal case is ongoing, State v. Jackson, 2024CF1528 (Dane
County), and this court cannot interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding. See
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971).
Fourth, even if this court could consider some of plaintiffs’ claims for money
damages for various alleged violations of their rights before, during or after the state court
proceedings, plaintiffs’ allegations span multiple state proceedings, incarcerations and
other incidents. The only incident involving both plaintiffs appears to be the initial search
of their hotel room in July 2024. These allegations almost certainly violate Federal Rules
Case: 3:25-cv-00054-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 by joining claims together that do not belong in the same
lawsuit. Under Rule 18, a plaintiff may bring unrelated claims against a particular
defendant. But a plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against more than one defendant.
Under Rule 20, defendants may be joined in one lawsuit only if the claims against them
arise out of the same transactions or occurrences and present questions of law or fact that
are common to them all. George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Here,
plaintiffs’ allegations include, among others, complaints about a search warrant and its
execution, challenges to a competency exam, conditions of confinement at Dane County
Jail, and complaints about access to Ramadan. These wide-ranging allegations and claims
cannot proceed together in the same lawsuit.
Fifth, plaintiffs have named multiple improper defendants. Specifically, plaintiffs
cannot proceed against a Gang Task Force, police department, or sheriff’s department
because those are not suable legal entities under § 1983. See Whiting v. Marathon Cty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 382 F.3d 700, 704 (7th Cir. 2004) (sheriff’s department not subject to suit
under § 1983); Williams v. Dane Cty. Narcotics Task, No. 20-cv-957-wmc, 2022 WL
4079023, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 6, 2022) (narcotics task force not subject to suit under
§ 1983); McCallum v. Ct. of Appeals, No. 19-cv-415-wmc, 2019 WL 4333315, at *2 (W.D.
Wis. Sept. 12, 2019) (citing Whiting and Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698, 698 n.1
(7th Cir. 2009)) (“[W]hile Wisconsin municipalities may be sued, see Wis. Stat. § 62.25,
agencies and departments may not.”).
Nor have plaintiffs included any plausible allegations suggesting they have claims
against the state or county; they cannot sue the state directly, and municipalities are liable
Case: 3:25-cv-00054-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
for unconstitutional acts of its officers only if the constitutional violations resulted from a
policy, widespread practice, or decision by a policymaker. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of
City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Moreover, state court judges are immune for
official actions, Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2005).
Sixth and finally, plaintiffs name as defendants numerous entities such as rental car
services, cellular companies and banks, but include no allegations explaining what those
plaintiffs did that violated plaintiffs’ federal rights.
In light of these numerous problems, the court must dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint
and supplements. However, the court will give plaintiffs an opportunity to submit an
amended complaint that addresses the problems identified in this order. In drafting their
amended complaint, plaintiffs should be sure to:
• Use the court’s approved forms for prisoners filing civil actions or similar
form available from the prison or jail law library.
• Limit their claims to a single set of transactions or occurrences and explain
why they both are appropriate plaintiffs and how any seemingly separate set
of events are related to each other.
• Carefully consider whether they are naming proper defendants and omit
defendants who did not personally cause or participate in a violation of their
rights or who would be immune from suit.
• Identify all of the individuals that they wish to sue in the caption of the
complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
Case: 3:25-cv-00054-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
• Describe simply and concisely what actions they believe that each defendant
took that violated their rights, using separate, numbered paragraphs.
If plaintiffs do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline set below, the
court will dismiss the case with prejudice and without further notice under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiffs Gregory P. Robinson, Jr. and Nicole Renee Jackson are DENIED leave
to proceed (dkt. #2) and their complaint (dkt. #1) and supplements (dkt.
##15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27) are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth above.
2) Plaintiff’s Letter of Consent (dkt. #10) is DENIED.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (dkt. #22) is DENIED.
4) The clerk’s office is directed to provide plaintiffs with a prisoner packet
containing a civil rights complaint form.
5) Plaintiffs have until April 29, 2026, to file an amended complaint that
addresses the problems identified in this order. Plaintiffs’ failure to file an
amended complaint by that deadline will result in the court dismissing this
action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
Entered this 1st day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00054-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 5 of 5