Corpus: 543,329 opinions ·
3,179 judges ·
newest 2026-11-02 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_26-cv-00590-0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALANA ACKER and WISCONSIN D.O.C.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-588-jdp
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WI D.O.C., LT. BORTZ, LT. VIRES, SGT. XIONG,
SGT. HINICKLE, and LT. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-589-jdp
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPT. HOFFSTATTER, CO II SCHULENBURG,
CO REILLY, CO REGO, and CO EHLE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-590-jdp
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT RYMARKIEWICZ, SGT. PHIPPS,
SGT. NGUYEN, LT. COBB, CAPT. HOFFSTATTER,
CO DOES 1-10, NURSE EILZABETH (DOE),
and NURSE ASHANTI WRIGHT,
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-614-jdp
Case: 3:26-cv-00590-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 09/29/26 Page 1 of 4
2
Defendants.
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT RYMARKIEWICZ, KEVIN GARCEAU,
JENNIFER LOHMAN PETERSON, KEVIN PITZEN,
JASON HILL, and CO. DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-802-jdp
BRANDON D. BRADLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT ANDREW CORMICAN, CO II PRESTON,
CO II SPICE, and CAPT HOFFSTATTER,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-953-jdp
Plaintiff Brandon D. Bradley, Sr., proceedin g without counsel, is incarcerated at
Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). Bradley has filed a series of lawsuits about various
incidents in which his constitutional rights have been violated over the past year. But Bradley’s
ability to file lawsuits in this court is limite d both by statue and by court sanctions. I will
dismiss these cases because Bradley’s complaints do not comply with these restrictions.
Bradley has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which means that he cannot obtain
indigent status under § 1915 in any suit he files during the period of him incarceration, except
for cases in which he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time
he filed the lawsuit. S ee Bradley v. Marchezki , No. 20-cv-1031-jdp, 2022 WL 174366, at *1
(W.D. Wis. Jan. 12, 2022) (discussing Bradley’s three-strike status). Also, because of Bradley’s
Case: 3:26-cv-00590-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 09/29/26 Page 2 of 4
3
long history of filing complaints that violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 by containing
unrelated claims against different sets of government officials, I sanctioned him by stating that
I would summarily dismiss any similarly flawed complaint he submits that clearly violates
Rule 20. See Bradley v. Novak , No. 20-cv-328-jdp, Dkt. 27, at 3 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 15, 2020).
After Bradley continued to file complaints that did not comply with these restrictions, I barred
him further from filing any case-initiating docu ments other than habeas corpus petitions and
complaints in which he alleges that he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm, even if
he prepaid the full filing fee. Bradley v. Barrett, No. 22-cv-239-jdp, 2022 WL 1302882, at *2
(W.D. Wis. May 2, 2022).
Bradley has filed the following lawsuits:
Case No. 26-cv-588-jdp: In November 2025, A staff member forced Bradley to
be handcuffed behind his back despite him having a restriction to be cuffed only
in the front due to a medical condition. He also received a false conduct report.
Case No. 26-cv-589-jdp: In October 2025, defendants cuffed Bradley behind his
back. Bradley fell to the floor in protes t, and defendants used excessive force
against him.
Case No. 26-cv-590-jdp: In October 2025, defendants fabricated a conduct
report against him and placed him in extremely tight restraints that harmed him.
Case No. 26-cv-614-jdp: In March 2026, defendants placed Bradley in painfully
tight restraints, leading to him suffering a health emergency. A nurse ignored his
pleas for help.
Case No. 26-cv-802-jdp: In October 2025, Bradley was sexually assaulted by his
cellmate. Defendants initially ignored Bradley’s complaint about the assault,
leading to him attempting self-harm. Bradley and the cellmate were later
separated.
Case No. 26-cv-953-jdp: In June 2026, Br adley was restrained with painfully
tight handcuffs and at some point was re strained behind his back. Defendants
ignored his complaints and later intentionally placed him near another prisoner
who Bradley believed would harm him.
Case: 3:26-cv-00590-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 09/29/26 Page 3 of 4
4
To meet the imminent-danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner must
allege a physical injury that is imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed and
show that the threat or prison condition causin g the physical injury is “real and proximate.”
Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d
781 (7th Cir. 2003); Lewis v. Sullivan , 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)). Each of these
c o m p l a i n t s i n v o l v e s a n i n c i d e n t o f h a r m t h a t o c c u r r e d m o n t h s b e f o r e B r a d l e y f i l e d h i s
complaint about the incident, and Bradley does not adequately state how he believes those
events are connected to an ongoing threat of harm to him that would be sufficient to meet the
imminent-danger requirement.
Ordinarily when this court concludes that an inmate’s complaint does not meet the
imminent-danger standard of § 1915(g), it gives the plaintiff a deadline to pay the entire $405
filing fee to proceed with the case. But that avenue is not available to Bradley given the
sanctions against him. See 2022 WL 1302882, at *2. So I will dismiss each of these cases.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Each of these cases are DISMISSED under this court’s sanctions against plaintiff.
2. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in each case and close them.
Entered September 29, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/ s /
________________________________________
J A M E S D . P E T E R S O N
D i s t r i c t J u d g e
Case: 3:26-cv-00590-jdp Document #: 4 Filed: 09/29/26 Page 4 of 4