Williams, Lucas v. Jimenez, Sergio et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LUCAS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGIO JIMENEZ, KEVIN C. McCLANAHAN,
CARMEN PACHECO, DAWN HILL-KEARSE, and
WAVNY TOUSSAINT,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
26-cv-11-wmc
Plaintiff Lucas Williams, who purports to reside in New Orleans, Louisiana, and who
represents himself, has filed a one-page complaint, stating that the defendants have conspired
to violate his right to due process in connection with “LT-325749-22/KI,” but providing no
factual support whatsoever. 	(Dkt. #1.) 	Because plaintiff seeks leave to proceed without
prepayment 	of the 	filing fee, 	the court must screen the complaint under 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. The
court must construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings generously, holding the complaint to a less
stringent 	standard 	than 	one 	a 	lawyer 	drafts. 	Arnett 	v. 	Webster, 	658 	F.3d 	742, 	751
(7th Cir. 2011). 	However, pro se plaintiffs still must provide enough facts to support a
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). After considering the complaint and plaintiff’s litigation history,
the court will dismiss the complaint with prejudice for reasons explained below.
Case: 3:26-cv-00011-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
OPINION
The court begins its analysis with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which
requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” 	Each allegation must be “simple, concise, and direct.” 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 	This standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but “naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” are not enough. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In
other words, a “plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands
of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to [him] that might be
redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis
in original).
The court understands plaintiff to be suing the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but
to succeed on constitutional claims under this statute, the defendants must have acted “under
color of state law.” Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 822 (7th Cir. 2009).
Likewise, the defendants must have been personally involved in the alleged constitutional
violation. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2018); see also Minix v. Canarecci, 597
F.3d 824, 833-34 (7th Cir. 2010) (individual liability under § 1983 requires personal
involvement, so plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that individual personally caused
or participated in constitutional deprivation).
Here, plaintiff does not identify who the defendants are or explain what each one did
to violate his rights. Plaintiff’s bare allegations do not demonstrate that any of the defendants
violated his constitutional rights. 	See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are insufficient to
Case: 3:26-cv-00011-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)). 	Therefore, the complaint fails to satisfy the
federal pleading standard found in Rule 8.
The Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing a self-represented plaintiff’s case
without giving the plaintiff a chance to amend. 	Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636
(7th Cir. 2016). The court declines to grant such leave in this case. First, it is plain that neither
the plaintiff nor the defendants have any connection to the Western District of Wisconsin.1
Second, the court notes that plaintiff has filed the identical, bare-bones complaint against the
same defendants in at least ten other federal district courts, signaling that he is an abusive
litigant. Williams v. Jimenez, No. 3:26-cv-4 (E.D. Ark.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-8 (D.
Ariz); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 3:26-cv-21 (M.D. Fla.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-4 (N.D.
Fla.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 7:26-cv-2 (M.D. Ga.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-4003 (C.D.
Ill.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-40001 (D. Mass.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-3005
(D. Neb.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 1:26-cv-4, D. R.I.); Williams v. Jimenez, No. 3:26-cv-6 (E.D.
Va.); and Williams v. Jimenez, No. 5:26-cv-1 (W.D. Va.).
A district court has broad discretion to dismiss a complaint “for reasons of wise judicial
administration . . . whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another
federal court.” 	McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 888-89 (7th Cir. 2012)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). 	Indeed, “it is ‘malicious’ for a pauper to file a
lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the same plaintiff.”
1 The court takes judicial notice of public records showing that Sergio Jimenez is a civil court
judge in Queens County, New York; Kevin C. McClanahan is a civil court judge in Bronx
County, New York; Carmen Pacheco is a small claims court judge in Kings County, New York,
where Dawn Hill-Kearse serves as County Clerk; and Wavny Toussaint is a justice on the
Supreme Court for the 2nd District of New York.
Case: 3:26-cv-00011-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846,
849 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the court concludes that the complaint is both duplicative and
malicious, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and the clerk of court will be directed
to close this case.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) The complaint filed by plaintiff Lucas Williams (dkt. #1) is DISMISSED with
prejudice as duplicative and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. #2) is DENIED.
3) The clerk of court is directed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
Entered this the 7th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00011-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4