Monroe v. Wisconsin DWD Unemployment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RICHARD L. MONROE, Plaintiff, Case No. 19-CV-817-JPS v. WISCONSIN DWD ORDER UNEMPLOYMENT, Defendant. On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in which he asked the Court to look into his unemployment insurance payments and determine whether they are correct. (Docket#1). That same day, he filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Docket #2). The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is indigent for the purposes of proceeding without prepayment of the fee. Plaintiff has no income, approximately $900.00 of monthly expenses, and his only asset is his house. Id. at 2–3. That motion will be granted. However, the Court must dismiss the case because, as written, the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that district courts may dismiss suits that fail to state a claim in order to save time and legal expense); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff explains that he has been unemployed for nearly two years and has tried to follow the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (“DWD”)’s instructions regarding his unemployment insurance. Nevertheless, he believes that his payments are insufficient in light of how long he has worked, and would like the Court to look into the issue. However, there are no other facts alleged in the complaint that allow the Court to infer what type of lawsuit he seeks to bring, or what he believes he should be receiving. Additionally, the bases for the Court’s jurisdiction is unclear. Plaintiff is encouraged to seek help from a lawyer. He may be able to get help from the following places: Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee Walk-in Hours: Monday and Wednesday, 1:30–3:30 p.m. 728 North James Lovell Street, Third Floor North Suite Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 Tel: (414) 727-5300 Disability Rights Wisconsin1 6737 West Washington Street, Suite 3230 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214 (414) 773-4646 State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyer Referral Service 1-(800) 362-9082 https://www.wisbar.org/forPublic/INeedaLawyer Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 1Plaintiff indicated that he should receive social security income (“SSI”) in his motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (Docket #2 at 2), but that he was not receiving any income. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 19th day July, 2019. BY THE \ =] — J.P. Staeltinueller U.&, Districtfudge Page 3 of 3