Johnson v. Meier
| Decision Date | 06 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10–CV–337. |
| Citation | 842 F.Supp.2d 1116 |
| Parties | Markel JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Holly MEIER, Rick Raemisch, Jodine Deppisch, Jim Schwochert, Mark Schomisch, Renee Shuler, Dr. David Burnett, and John Doe, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
842 F.Supp.2d 1116
Markel JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
Holly MEIER, Rick Raemisch, Jodine Deppisch, Jim Schwochert, Mark Schomisch, Renee Shuler, Dr. David Burnett, and John Doe, Defendants.
Case No. 10–CV–337.
United States District Court,
E.D. Wisconsin.
Feb. 6, 2012.
Amir I. Mohabbat, Chicagoland & Suburban Law Firm PC, Oak Park, IL, Maurice Salem, Law Offices of Salem & Associates, Palos Heights, IL, for Plaintiff.
Chad R. Gendreau, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Markel Johnson, an inmate in a Wisconsin prison, has filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that
[842 F.Supp.2d 1117]
various administrators are subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by refusing to approve his request for surgery on his knee. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
On February 28, 2008, when he was incarcerated at Fox Lake Correctional Institution, plaintiff injured his knee during a basketball game. The institution provided plaintiff with some treatment for this injury, but plaintiff alleges that he continues to suffer pain and that he requires surgery. On October 25, 2009, plaintiff filed an offender complaint with the institution pursuant to the Wisconsin Department of Correction's inmate complaint review system. See generally Wis. Admin. Code Ch. DOC 310. In this complaint, plaintiff explained that he had injured his knee, that he was in tremendous pain, that he had been advised by doctors that he needed surgery, but that Dr. Larson—the doctor at Fox Lake—refused to authorize the surgery and would not tell plaintiff why he could not have the surgery.
On October 27, 2009, Renee Schueler, the Institution Complaint Examiner (“ICE”) at Fox Lake, responded to plaintiff's offender complaint in writing. She explained that she was returning the complaint without processing because plaintiff was required to first attempt to resolve his issue informally with medical staff. Schueler was authorized to return the complaint for this reason under § DOC 310.09(4) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, which provides that an ICE may direct the inmate to attempt to resolve the issue raised in the complaint before accepting the complaint for filing. Schueler informed plaintiff that once he attempted to resolve his issue with medical staff, he could file a new offender complaint. Schueler instructed plaintiff to provide her office with any written documentation of his attempts to resolve the issue with medical staff.
On November 8, 2009, plaintiff submitted a second offender complaint relating to his knee injury. In this complaint, plaintiff explained that he had attempted to resolve his issue with medical staff before he filed his first complaint, and that he was attaching the documentation he had received in response to his earlier attempts. Plaintiff then stated:
The reason I'm submitting this [offender complaint] is because I was denied surgery on my left knee and I would like to know why when on paper it clearly shows I have a torn ACL. I've been in pain lately and would like to get this process over with.
(Schueler Aff. [Docket # 32] Ex. 1003.)
On November 10, 2009, Schueler once again refused to accept plaintiff's complaint for processing. This time, she stated that the complaint was being returned pursuant to a rule stating that inmate complaints shall “[c]ontain only one issue per complaint, and shall clearly identify the issue.” SeeWis. Admin. Code § DOC 310.09(1)(e). Schueler did not explain whether she thought that plaintiff had raised more than one issue in his complaint or she thought that the complaint did not clearly identify the issue.1
[842 F.Supp.2d 1118]
Plaintiff did not make any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvard v. Inch
...Cir. 2011) ("[I]mproper rejection of grievance appeal excuses the prisoner's failure to properly exhaust."); Johnson v. Meier , 842 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1119 (E.D. Wis. 2012) (finding that defendants wrongly concluded that the plaintiff violated the single-issue rule and because the plaintiff ......
-
Adell v. Foster
...actionin state court. See Wis. Stat. § 893.735 (2017-18). Adell's claim is not without support. See, e.g., Johnson v. Meier, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1118 (E.D. Wis. 2012) (denying summary judgment brought on exhaustion grounds because, as far as the court could tell, Chapter DOC 310 of the Wi......
-
Adell v. Ray, Case No. 19-C-476
...complaints were not returned under § DOC 310.10(5) did not impede his ability to pursue his claims in court. See Johnson v. Meier, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1118 (E.D. Wis. 2012); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 5 (calling confiscation of inmate complaints a manner of "unlawfully finalizing his complain......
-
Steiskal v. Lewitzke
...or presents multiple issues. WIS. ADMIN. CODE §§ DOC 310.07(1), (2)(b), DOC 310.09(1), (3), DOC 310.11(5); Johnson v. Meier, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1118 (E.D. Wis. 2012); Freeman v. Berge, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013 (W.D. Wis. 2003); State ex rel. Grzelak v. Bertrand, 665 N.W.2d 244, 247 (Wi......