517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2008), 07-1924, Obriecht v. Raemisch

Docket Nº:07-1924.
Citation:517 F.3d 489
Party Name:Andrew M. OBRIECHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick RAEMISCH, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Matthew J. Frank, in his individual capacity, Byron Bartow, Chona Arong, et al., [*] Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:February 22, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 489

517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2008)

Andrew M. OBRIECHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Rick RAEMISCH, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Matthew J. Frank, in his individual capacity, Byron Bartow, Chona Arong, et al., [*] Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1924.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2008

Submitted Dec. 19, 2007. [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 05 C 1171-J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.

Page 490

Andrew M. Obriecht, Plymouth, WI, pro se.

Jody J. Schmelzer, J.B. Van Hollen, Office of the Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before RIPPLE, MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Andrew Matthew Obriecht, a Wisconsin prisoner, brought this action against various employees and officers (collectively the "prison officials") of the Wisconsin Resource Center ("WRC"), the Wisconsin mental health facility in which he was committed, and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("WDOC"). He alleged that he was denied procedural due process when he was transferred to the WRC and when he was forced to take psychotropic medications. The district court granted summary judgment to the prison officials; it held that Mr. Obriecht had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. For

Page 491

the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

BACKGROUND

Prior to 2003, Mr. Obriecht was held in a privately operated correctional facility in Minnesota under the auspices of the WDOC. In March 2003, at the recommendation of a psychiatrist, Mr. Obriecht was transferred to the WRC. Between June 2003 and March 2004, while at the WRC, Mr. Obriecht involuntarily was medicated. In March 2004, Mr. Obriecht again was transferred, this time to Fox Lake Correctional Institution, a Wisconsin prison. When a program review committee at Fox Lake met in July 2004 to discuss Mr. Obreicht, a social worker recommended that Mr. Obriecht be returned to the WRC. This social worker based the recommendation on a physician's report that Mr. Obriecht was hallucinating and delusional. The program review committee then approved Mr. Obriecht's second transfer to the WRC, and that transfer occurred in July 2004. While at the WRC, Mr. Obriecht again involuntarily was medicated for about three weeks.

DOC regulations provide an administrative review system for inmate complaints ("ICRS"). See Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 310.01-18. An inmate initiates the ICRS review process by filing an offender complaint with the Inmate Complaint Examiner. See Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 310.04, DOC 310.11. Here, the defendant prison officials contend that, although Mr. Obriecht did file an offender complaint about the substantive decision to transfer him to the WRC, he never complained about the procedure used in making the decision to transfer him. Mr. Obriecht asserts that he filed a separate offender complaint on that issue but that it was ignored.1 Additionally, the prison officials maintain that Mr. Obriecht never filed any offender complaints about forced medication. Mr. Obriecht again contends that he did, but that the complaints were ignored.

In November 2005, Mr. Obriecht brought this section 1983 action. He challenges, among other issues not raised on appeal, the procedures used to transfer him to the WRC and the forced administration of psychotropic medicine.2 After the district court had screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Mr. Obriecht moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The prison officials cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that Mr. Obriecht had failed to exhaust his administrative...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP