Daniels v. Klemmer
| Decision Date | 04 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-C-1701 |
| Citation | 404 F.Supp.3d 1223 |
| Parties | Shavontae DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. Trevor KLEMMER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Shavontae Daniels, Racine, WI, pro se.
Rachel L. Bachhuber, Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Shavontae Daniels is a Wisconsin state prisoner and is representing himself. He filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding on claims relating to an incident of self-harm. Before me now are both the plaintiff's and the defendants' motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, I deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. Docket No. 55 ¶ 1; Docket No. 67 ¶ 1. The defendants were, at all times relevant, working at Waupun. Docket No. 67 ¶ 2. Defendants Pohl and Trevison were employed as correctional officers; defendant Klemmer was a sergeant; and defendant Tritt was a supervising officer. Id.
On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff was in clinical observation status. Id. ¶ 4. Clinical observation status is non-punitive and used for the temporary confinement of inmates to ensure their safety or others' safety. Id. ¶ 5. The clinical observation staff determine what property an inmate is allowed while in observation based on the level of risk and after consulting with a security officer. Id. ¶ 6. An inmate is generally restricted to suicide-resistant clothing, a security mat, soap and a washcloth, bag meals, toilet paper, and certain forms for requesting health or psychological services. Id. ¶ 7.
The plaintiff had previously been placed on behavior management plan in March 2017 with a history of multiple placements in observation following reports of self-harm/suicidal thoughts, self-injurious behavior, and threats of self-harm or suicide. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. He also had a history of seeking contact with Psychological Services Unit ("PSU") staff by making statements about self-harm/suicide and then denying or recanting those statements when seen by PSU staff. Id. ¶ 10. The purpose of the behavior management plan was to develop a series of actions that could be taken to guide the plaintiff's behavior and provide an intervention guideline to improve the management of his behavior. Id. The behavior management plan directs correctional officers or other staff to notify PSU, a security supervisor, or program supervisor if the plaintiff told them that he needed to see PSU because of thoughts of self-harm or suicide.1 Id. ¶ 12.
Under the plan, the plaintiff was responsible for accurately and honestly reporting problems and symptoms related to emotional distress and thoughts of self-harm or suicide. Id. ¶ 13. The plaintiff's behavior management plan did not dictate that he had to be placed on observation every time he expressed suicidal ideation
or thoughts of self-harm. Id. ¶ 14. If PSU staff, the security supervisor, or program supervisor recommended he be placed on observation status, he would be. Id. ¶ 15.
Sometime between 8:35 and 8:45 a.m. on October 2, 2017, the plaintiff was released from observation status. Id. ¶ 16. Later that day, around 1:15 p.m., he contacted the intercom officer, defendant Pohl, and stated that he was cutting himself.2 Docket No. 78 ¶ 1; Docket No. 67 ¶ 70. Pohl does not recall anything about this situation. Docket No. 55 ¶ 4. According to the plaintiff, Pohl came to his cell, looked in, and then walked away. Docket No. 38 ¶ 7(3). Plaintiff engaged in self-harm behavior between 1:15 and 2:30. Id. ¶ 7(4).
Shortly after second shift started, which is between 2:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., defendant Trevison went to the plaintiff's cell front. Docket No. 67 ¶ 19. The plaintiff was walking at a fast pace. Id. The parties dispute whether the plaintiff told Trevison that he was upset about the intercom in his cell not working. Id. They do agree that, at some point, she needed to pull him out of the cell to have the call button fixed. Docket No. 67 ¶ 24; Docket No. 38 ¶ 7(6). The plaintiff showed Trevison a cut on his arm (the parties dispute the nature and severity of the cut) that had some dried blood in it. Docket No. 67 ¶ 20; Docket No. 38 ¶ 7(7). The plaintiff did not tell Trevison that he was suicidal or having suicidal thoughts at that time, but he did say he would continue to engage in self-harm. Docket No. 67 ¶ 21.
Trevison radioed defendant Klemmer, who was assigned as the shift sergeant in the Restrictive Housing Unit ("RHU"), to come to the cell front. Id. ¶ 22. Previously, Klemmer had learned that the plaintiff's cell needed to have the in-cell intercom fixed. Id. ¶ 23. But before he could remove him from his cell for the maintenance, he received the call from Trevison and arrived at the plaintiff's cell about a minute later. Id. ¶¶ 24–26. The plaintiff told Klemmer he was upset about having not yet received his property after being released from observation earlier in the day. Id. ¶ 27. The plaintiff states that he was specifically upset because he did not have any toilet tissue and therefore could not have a bowel movement, causing him pain. Id. ; Docket No. 78 ¶ 8. Klemmer told the plaintiff he did not know that the plaintiff had not received his property and that he would look into it. Docket No. 67 ¶ 29.
Klemmer told the plaintiff that maintenance needed to come into his cell to work on the intercom and he would need to be moved to a shower stall while they worked. Id. ¶ 30. He told the plaintiff that he would ensure that he received his allowed property while his intercom was being repaired. Id. ¶ 31. The plaintiff showed Klemmer the cut on his arm and refused to tell Klemmer what caused it.3 Id. ¶ 32. According to the plaintiff, he inflicted the cut using a razor that he found taped to the bottom of the back of cell food trap. Docket No. 78 ¶ 12. Klemmer asked the plaintiff if he was suicidal or if he planned to harm himself, and he replied, "No, I just want my mother-fucking property." Docket No. 67 ¶ 33. Klemmer had the plaintiff wash some of the blood off his arm. Docket No. 55 ¶ 31. Had it been actively bleeding, Klemmer would have contacted a supervisor, as well as the Health Services Unit ("HSU") for an assessment. Docket No. 67 ¶ 36.
The plaintiff was restrained and escorted to the shower stalls, where he was placed in a holding cell about ten feet away from his own cell while maintenance fixed the intercom. Id. ¶ 37. According to Klemmer, he asked the plaintiff he wanted to be seen at HSU for his cut and the plaintiff declined. Id. ¶ 38. The plaintiff, however, states that Klemmer never asked him if he wanted to be seen at HSU. Docket No. 66 ¶ 24(11). While maintenance fixed the intercom, Klemmer and another officer retrieved the plaintiff's property and placed it into his cell. Docket No. 67 ¶ 39. Klemmer and Trevison then escorted the plaintiff back to his regular cell. Id. ¶ 40. The defendants contend the plaintiff was without further incident, but the plaintiff contends he continued to engage in self-harm. Id.
On October 9, 2017, the plaintiff submitted an offender complaint, alleging that on October 2, staff were aware that he was "engaging in self-harm yet ignored [him] for hours." Id. ¶ 48. In the complaint, he alleges that he tried to get staff's attention about his property. Id. ¶ 49. After his attempts were unsuccessful, he became upset and started to harm himself. Around 1:30 an officer (not a defendant) came to get a different inmate for HSU and the plaintiff showed the officer the blood all over his hands and arm and his shirt. The officer went to notify a sergeant. That officer came back and kept walking past his cell, ignoring him. Id. He goes on to allege that at around 2:00, Trevison came to his cell to have his call button fixed. Id. ¶ 60. When he showed her his arm and the blood, she radioed Klemmer. Klemmer came to his cell and had him wash the blood off his arm before placing him in cuffs. He then escorted the plaintiff to a shower stall while his intercom was fixed and then brought him back to his cell. After that, the plaintiff says, he continued to hurt himself. He complained that he should have been placed on observation status. Id.
The Institution Complaint Examiner, Tonia Moon (not a defendant), contacted defendant Tritt about the plaintiff's complaint. Id. ¶ 51. Tritt then reviewed the camera footage from October 2. Id. ¶ 52. She could only review the footage for the time between 1:14 p.m. and 1:59 p.m. because that was the only time that the plaintiff did not have his camera covered. Id. Tritt told Moon that he observed the plaintiff kicking his cell door, walking around his cell, and looking at one of his arms a lot—possibly picking at it or something similar. Id. ¶ 53. Tritt told Moon that he did not see any blood so he could not be sure if the plaintiff was harming himself. Id. ¶ 54. Other than providing this information to Moon, Tritt did not personally participate in any decision concerning the disposition of the complaint. Id. ¶ 55. The plaintiff also agrees that this was Tritt's only involvement in this case. Id. ¶ 47. He was not in the control center that day and he was not informed of incident concerning the plaintiff on October 2 until asked to review the video footage. Id. ¶¶ 45, 47.
If inmates have a non-emergency medical need, they are required to submit a health service request to HSU. Id. ¶ 57. Crystal Marchant (not a defendant) reviewed the plaintiff's medical records and found that he did not submit any health service requests for any injuries sustained on October 2, 2017 by cutting himself with a razor. Id. ¶ 60.
The plaintiff saw psychological associate ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Waterworth v. City Of Joliet
- Waterworth v. City Of Joliet
-
Braithwaite v. Bille
...is whether the plaintiff was at risk of serious harm, not whether he ultimately suffered a serious injury. See Daniels v. Klemmer, 404 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1230 (E.D. Wis. 2019) ("The question is whether, at the time the plaintiff made the threat and the defendants responded to it, the plainti......
-
Fitzpatrick v. Weycker
... ... However, the parties dispute the extent of the ... plaintiff's injury and treatment. See Daniels v ... Klemmer , 404 F.Supp.3d 1223, 1230 (E.D. Wis. 2019) ... (“The nature of the harm the plaintiff ended up ... inflicting on ... ...