Darrell Rogers v. Charles Dombeck et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: May 19, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00011
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

EUANSITTEERDN S DTAISTTERSI CDTIS OTFR WICITS CCOONUSRITN

DARRELL ROGERS,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 26-cv-0011-bhl

CHARLES DOMBECK et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Darrell Rogers, who is confined at the Racine Correctional Institution and representing himself, is proceeding on Eighth Amendment medical care claims. See Dkt. No. 10. On May 7, 2026, he filed an amended complaint. The Court will strike the amended complaint because Rogers did not comply with Civil L. R. 15. Under that rule, Rogers is required to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion “must state specifically what changes are sought” by the proposed amended complaint, and the proposed amended complaint must be filed as an attachment to the motion. Rogers is advised that the Court will deny a motion for leave to amend “if the proposed repleading would be futile, DeSalle v. Wright, 969 F.2d 273, 278 (7th Cir.1992), and futile re-pleadings include restating the same facts using different language, Wakeen v. Hoffman House, Inc., 724 F.2d 1238, 1244 (7th Cir.1983), reasserting claims previously determined, id., failing to state a valid theory of liability, Verhein v. South Bend Lathe, Inc., 598 F.2d 1061, 1063 (7th Cir.1979), and the inability to survive a motion to dismiss, Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 268 (7th Cir.1985).” Garcia v. City of Chicago, Ill., 24 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1994). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rogers’ proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17) is STRICKEN from the record. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of May, 2026. s/ Brett H. Ludwig BRETT H. LUDWIG United States District Judge