Anthony Carlton Dunlap, Sr. v. B.O.P., Director B.O.P., Inspector General, Warden Emmerich, Thornberry, Ass. Warden Rosenberg, Ass. Warden Palmer, Unit Manager Brosh, Unit Mgr. Sponsler, Unit Mgr. Winger, Health Services Adm. Malcom, Assists. HSA Lt. Key, Dr. Linda Lindner, Dr. Shing, Nurse Practitioner Bell, Invest. 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, O

Opinion

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, ORDER H.I.T. TAUB, CHAPLAIN WILLIS,

TRUST FUND SUPV. DIERKUS, 25-cv-371-jdp 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. Anthony Carlton Dunlap, Sr., proceeding without counsel, is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Beckley. 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 gave him a chance to submit an amended complaint fixing those problems. Id. I later denied his motion for reconsideration of my dismissal of the complaint. Dkt. 30. Dunlap now moves for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and he has submitted a proposed amended complaint. Dkt. 32 and Dkt. 34. Dunlap submitted his amended complaint by the deadline set by the court, so I will deny his motion for extension of time as moot. I will dismiss Dunlap’s proposed amended complaint because it still suffers from one of

the problems that I discussed in my previous order. His new 41-page complaint contains a variety of claims concerning unrelated events such as inadequate medical care, uses of excessive force against him, and denial of religious rights. His allegations violate Federal Rules 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). I will give Dunlap a final chance to amend his allegations to limit his amended complaint to one set of claims that belong together under Rules 18 and 20. If Dunlap does not file an amended complaint by the deadline set below, I will dismiss this case for his failure to state a claim and the court will record a “strike” against him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, Dkt. 32, is DENIED as moot. 2. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 34, is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may have until February 3, 2026, to submit an amended complaint as discussed in this opinion. Entered January 13, 2026. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge