922 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1990), 90-1222, Gelford v. Clusen
|Citation:||922 F.2d 843|
|Party Name:||Colin GELFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald CLUSEN, Daniel Bertrand, David Norman, Jerome Tierney and Patrick McQuillan, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||November 26, 1990|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Jan. 7, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 89 C 805; John C. Shabaz, Judge.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Before WOOD, JR., COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Colin Gelford was convicted of burglary in a Wisconsin state court and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Gelford was incarcerated at the Dodge Correctional Institute (DCI) on February 4, 1986, for assessment and evaluation concerning his placement into the Wisconsin correctional system. While at DCI, Gelford was evaluated as a "vulnerable" inmate. 1 On April 8, 1986, Gelford was transferred to the Green Bay Correctional Institute. (hereinafter GBCI). Like other new arrivals, Gelford was placed in "receiving/segregation." While in "receiving/segregation," Gelford shared a cell with Brian Holub. Holub was not a new arrival, but was placed in this cell in "unassigned/door-locked status" awaiting replacement in the general population due to problems he was having with his former cellmate. Within the six months before being placed in the same segregation cell with Gelford, Holub had been reported twice for fighting at the institution. On April 18, 1986, Gelford and Holub got into a fight during which Holub stabbed Gelford in the hand. Gelford received five stitches as a result of this incident.
B. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Gelford initiated a § 1983 action alleging violations of the eighth and fourteenth amendments and requested the district court to let him proceed in forma pauperis. Gelford first alleged that the defendants violated his fourteenth amendment right to due process by placing him in "punitive" segregation when he was received at GBCI. 2 Gelford further maintained that his eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when the defendants placed him, a vulnerable inmate, in the same cell as Holub who was "a known violent inmate."
This case has had an unusual procedural posture. The district court initially denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. Gelford then brought a motion to vacate that order. In response, the district court ruled that Gelford arguably stated a claim on the fourteenth amendment claim, but did not address his eighth amendment contentions. Gelford requested clarification of the status of his eighth amendment claim. The district court treated Gelford's request as a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion because Gelford "had not alleged that any of the named defendants knew he was in danger from another inmate and were then deliberately indifferent to this danger." 3 During the course of these proceedings, Gelford brought four additional motions to vacate the district Judge's denial of leave...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP