Bollig v. Fiedler

• Decision Date: 21 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-C-205.,93-C-205.
• Citation: 863 F. Supp. 841
• Parties: Richard J. BOLLIG, Plaintiff, v. Patrick J. FIEDLER, Donald Gudmanson, Karl Brekke, Dr. Margaret Alexander, Leslie Steckbauer, Michael Zeimet, David Rutter and Jose Rodriguez, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

863 F. Supp. 841

Richard J. BOLLIG, Plaintiff, v. Patrick J. FIEDLER, Donald Gudmanson, Karl Brekke, Dr. Margaret Alexander, Leslie Steckbauer, Michael Zeimet, David Rutter and Jose Rodriguez, Defendants.

No. 93-C-205.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

September 21, 1994.

Richard J. Bollig, pro se.

John J. Glinski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, WI, for defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

CURRAN, District Judge.

Richard Bollig, a prisoner in state custody, is suing eight state correctional officials and employees¹ for violating his constitutional right to due process. He seeks injunctive and monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This alleged violation occurred when the Defendants ordered Bollig to attend a Deniers' Education Program DEP, which is an educational program for prisoners who have committed sex offenses and have refused treatment. Bollig alleges that he was transferred to a cell separate from the general prison population, lost his prison industries job, and suffered emotional distress because of being forced to attend the DEP.

The Defendants have answered and denied liability. Bollig's request for a temporary injunction was denied and, after a period for discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Despite being notified of his obligation to respond, Bollig has failed to respond to the motion and his time in which to file a response has now passed, so his right to respond is deemed waived. See Local Rule 6, § 6.02.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Defendants have submitted proposed findings of fact in support of their motion. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 1-13. Because the Plaintiff has not responded with affidavits or other evidence showing that any of these proposed facts are in dispute, the court will accept them as uncontroverted. The Defendants state that:

1. Plaintiff, Richard J. Bollig, is an inmate who was incarcerated at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution ("OSCI") during the times relevant to his complaint.

2. Defendant Patrick J. Fiedler was the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections until November 1993. Fiedler was succeeded in office by Michael Sullivan.

3. Defendant Donald Gudmanson is the Warden of OSCI.

4. Defendant Karl Brekke is the Director of the Southwest Center at OSCI.

5. Defendant Dr. Margaret Alexander is a Psychologist Supervisor I at OSCI.

6. Defendant Leslie Steckbauer was a social worker at OSCI until November 30, 1992. Defendant Steckbauer is currently a Probation/Parole Agent for the Department of Corrections.

7. Defendant Michael Zeimet is a social worker at OSCI.

8. Defendant David Rutter is the Employee Assistance Coordinator for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. At the times relevant to this complaint, defendant Rutter was the Open Center Director at OSCI.

9. Defendant Jose Rodriguez was at the times relevant to this lawsuit the Program Review coordinator at OSCI.

10. Upon their entry into the prison system, inmates are placed at the Dodge Correctional Institution for Assessment and Evaluation ("A & E"). While undergoing the A & E process, inmates are reviewed by medical staff, clinical services staff, and staff who determine the inmate's program and treatment needs.

11. Clinical Services is the Department of Corrections' agency responsible for providing mental health care and treatment services to inmates in the Wisconsin Prison System. The appropriateness of participation in Clinical Services programs is determined by professional staff employed by Clinical Services.

12. A function of the Dodge Assessment and Evaluation Team is the initial classification of inmates and institution placement. The Program Review Committee PRC at each institution is then responsible for all follow up reviews of inmates.

13. Plaintiff underwent the A & E process at Dodge Correctional Institution, and was issued his Inmate Classification Summary on December 5, 1991. The Classification Summary states that Bollig's Program Recommendations, in priority order, were:

1. Sex offender treatment

2. DIU (DACC)

3. Chem Depend — support

4. Comm resid confine (CRC)

The committee's overall summary/comments were as follows:

At age 23 Mr. Bollig is beginning his second period of adult incarceration. He now has an eight year governing term for 2nd degree sexual assault. Maximum custody is warranted given nature of offense.... There is a clinical evaluation on file which recommends SOT sex offender treatment and AODA treatment.

14. If, following an inmate's evaluation by a social worker or clinician, a clinical need is established, the Program Review Committee reviews the clinical need of the inmate. If the inmate has a need for treatment but denies that need, the inmate is considered in denial.

15. Defendant Steckbauer was the intake social worker who worked with plaintiff upon his arrival at OSCI in July 1992. On August 3, 1992, Steckbauer made her summary and appraisal of program review request for plaintiff's initial PRC hearing after his arrival at OSCI. The summary stated:

Mr. Bollig was transferred from GBCI on 7/21/92. He states he will attend AA to meed CDSG chemical dependency support group need. He is interested in DIU when available. He has refused SOT sex offender treatment in the past but might be interested in a group for those in denial.... He will seek a job preferably in BSI.

16. In late summer or early fall of 1992, OSCI received orders from the DOC in Madison that it was to expand its population. OSCI decided that additional beds were to be put in the Southwest Cell Hall. Prior to this time, the only inmates housed in the Southwest Cell Hall were those inmates who were participating in the sexual offenders treatment program, known as SOTP.

17. In order for an inmate to participate in SOTP, the inmate had to meet certain criteria. The criteria included a clinical evaluation and an assessment of the inmate, the signing of a waiver of confidentiality and a willingness of the inmate to participate in the program.

18. With the addition of twenty-three more beds in the Southwest Cell Hall, the SOTP program was expanded to include education for sexual offenders. A program called SOTP II, later renamed the Deniers' Program, was developed which was designed to help sexual offenders accept responsibilities for their actions, educate the sexual offender and to motivate the offender to accept treatment. From September 1992 to May 1994 defendant Alexander was in charge of the Deniers' Program at OSCI.

19. The Deniers' Program is a three-month pre-treatment program at OSCI designed for men who minimize or deny their offense and have refused treatment or are not sufficiently motivated to benefit from the Sex Offenders Treatment Program. The Deniers' Program is designed to help sex offenders accept responsibility for their actions, as well as to educate sex offenders to come to grips with the reality of their past actions and to motivate the offender to accept treatment.

20. Criteria which must be met for an inmate to participate in the Deniers' Program include: the inmate must be a sex offender and he must deny he needs treatment. An inmate who meets the criteria for the Deniers' Program cannot refuse if he is assigned to the program.

21. Beginning in August of 1992, after the additional beds were put in the Southwest Cell Hall, defendant Brekke received the names of inmates who met the criteria for assignment in the Deniers' Program from the Program Review Committee upon the inmate's initial review at OSCI.

22. Defendant Steckbauer was assigned as plaintiff's social worker while he was housed in the Open Center at OSCI. In November 1992, defendant Steckbauer spoke with plaintiff regarding his upcoming scheduled program review to be held November 16, 1992. After speaking with plaintiff, Ms. Steckbauer entered the following as my sic summary on the PRC form: "This is a scheduled review for Mr. Bollig. He is currently assigned to BSI Badger State Industries and requests to continue. I support continued placement and custody. He waives appearance."

23. Defendant Steckbauer left her position as social worker at OSCI on November 30, 1992. After making her recommendation for plaintiff's 11/16/92 PRC hearing, Steckbauer did not make any additional program review recommendations for plaintiff prior to her departure.

24. On November 16, 1992, plaintiff Bollig was seen by the Program Review Committee ("PRC") at OSCI for a regular recall. Defendant Rodriguez was a member of this PRC. The 11/16/92 committee commented:

Mr. Bollig is being reviewed as a regular recall for reason indicated above. Committee had some concerns over Mr. Bollig's involvement in the clinical services for issues relating to his offense. We want to indicate to Mr. Bollig today that it is essential that he address his treatment needs. A referral to clinical services has been made today to screen Mr. Bollig for SOTP II now call the Deniers' Education Program. We note that he refuses his involvement in this program and indicates that "might as well send me out as I will not go to that program." Mr. Bollig will be seen again in six months and he will continue his present custody as well as program assignment.

25. Plaintiff Richard Bollig was one of the individuals who met the criteria for placement in the Deniers' Program.

26. The Deniers' Program appeared an appropriate and efficacious means of motivating plaintiff to accept treatment within the prison system, considering the plaintiff's sentence structure and the resources allocated to Clinical Services programs.

27. If an inmate is referred to the DEP, he is moved to the Southwest Center, where the DEP is administered. As Open Center Director, it was defendant Rutter's job to inform inmates housed in the Open Center...