Torgerson, Kristopher v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KRISTOPHER PAUL TORGERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF WIS. SYS.,
MICHAEL A. STIER, DR. ROBERT F. CORLISS, DR.
HART, BARRY E. IRMEN, JESSICA BLAHNIK, and
DOES 1–20,
Defendants.
ORDER
26-cv-64-jdp
Plaintiff Kristopher Paul Torgerson, who’s representing himself, seeks relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This order provides Torgerson guidance on how to properly submit his claims
for this court’s review, and it deals with two pending motions.
The court begins with Torgerson’s complaint and his motion for judicial notice.
Dkts. 1–2. This court provides prisoners seeking to file suit a prisoner complaint package that
includes a complaint form and instructions on filing a prisoner complaint in federal court. Filing
a complaint on the form is not mandatory in every prisoner case, but the court has discretion
to order prisoners to use the form when it promises to help them articulate their claims and to
promote judicial economy. See A. Bauer Mech., Inc. v. Joint Arb. Bd. of Plumbing Contractors’ Ass’s
& Chi. Journeymen Plumbers’ Loc. Union 130, U.A., 562 F.3d 784, 790 (7th Cir. 2009) (courts
have broad discretion to enforce local practices that enable a district court to manage its docket
as efficiently as possible).
Torgerson’s complaint, which is excessively argumentative, runs 12 pages itself.
Torgerson then attempts to expand the complaint’s scope by moving the court to incorporate
the records of several state-court judicial proceedings. Torgerson says that this wholesale
Case: 3:26-cv-00064-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 02/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
incorporation will, among other things, “[e]stablish the factual predicate for [his] constitutional
claims.” Dkt. 2 at 2. But the court will not parse the complaint and the numerous documents
that Torgerson seeks to incorporate into the complaint to attempt to discern the facts
supporting a potentially plausible claim. That approach would create a disordered record,
unduly strain the court’s resources, and divert it from its role as a neutral decisionmaker. The
court must construe Torgerson’s allegations generously, but it cannot construct his claims for
him.
Instead, the court will require Torgerson to file a complete amended complaint, using
the prisoner complaint form, to more carefully articulate the facts supporting his claims. Once
the court has received the amended complaint, it will be screened.
The court will send Torgerson a copy of the prisoner complaint form along with this
order. Torgerson may include supplemental pages with the form if he needs more space to
allege facts supporting his claims, but he may provide no more than five (5) supplemental
pages. Any handwritten or typewritten text on the form or any supplemental page must be
large enough and have enough spacing between the lines and in the margins for the court to
read 	it 	easily. 	For 	reference, 	Torgerson’s 	complaint 	meets 	the 	spacing 	and 	text 	size
requirements.
In drafting the amended complaint, Torgerson should be mindful that, to state a claim
for relief, a pleading need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
[he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Torgerson’s allegations must be “simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Torgerson should state his allegations in numbered
paragraphs, 	“each 	limited 	as 	far 	as 	practicable 	to 	a 	single 	set 	of 	circumstances.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Torgerson should identify his claims in this manner and omit any legal
Case: 3:26-cv-00064-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 02/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
arguments. Torgerson may, if he wishes, attach exhibits to the amended complaint, but he may
not incorporate by reference any content from those exhibits, or from any purported matters
of public record.
Torgerson should carefully consider whether he is naming proper defendants, which
means that he should omit defendants who did not personally participate in, or otherwise
cause, a violation of his rights. Torgerson must explain what each defendant did, or failed to
do, to violate his rights. Torgerson should avoid referring to defendants collectively. Torgerson
also should identify by full name in the case caption of the amended complaint every one of
the defendants.
The court turns to the other pending motion. Torgerson moves the court to screen his
complaint now that he has paid the initial partial filing fee. Dkt. 10. This motion is moot
because the court is ordering Torgerson to amend the complaint. This motion is also
unnecessary because the court is familiar with its requirement to screen complaints pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Kristopher Paul Torgerson has until March 25, 2026 to file an amended
complaint in accordance with the instructions provided in this order.
2. 	The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the complaint. This
case will proceed on only the allegations made and claims presented in the amended
complaint, and against only the defendants specifically named in the amended
complaint’s caption.
3. 	If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the court may dismiss the case.
Case: 3:26-cv-00064-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 02/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
4. 	The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s prisoner
complaint form.
5. 	Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, Dkt. 2, is DENIED without prejudice.
6. 	Plaintiff’s request to proceed to screening, Dkt. 10, is DENIED as moot.
Entered February 24, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00064-jdp Document #: 13 Filed: 02/25/26 Page 4 of 4