Kaufman v. Schneiter
| Decision Date | 27 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-cv-00415-bbc.,07-cv-00415-bbc. |
| Citation | 524 F.Supp.2d 1101 |
| Parties | James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff, v. Richard SCHNEITER (WSPF Warden); Peter Huibregtse (WSPF Deputy Warden); Randall Hepp (JCI Warden); and Cari Taylor (JCI Deputy Warden), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Corey F. Finkelmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
In this civil action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, plaintiff James Kaufman is proceeding on claims that (1) defendant Randall Hepp transferred him to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility because plaintiff sued him in Case No. 06-C-205-C; (2) defendants Richard Schneiter and Peter Huibregtse violated his First Amendment rights by upholding a prison policy under which he is denied all publications; (3) defendant Carl Taylor violated his rights under the First Amendment by dismissing a complaint for nondelivery of a letter from Robert Bernard received on or about September 5, 2006; (4) defendants Schneiter and Huibregtse violated his right to practice his atheist beliefs by preventing him from ordering publications about atheism in violation of the free exercise clause and RLUIPA; (5) defendant Huibregtse violated his rights under the establishment clause by refusing to provide plaintiff with atheist reading material while providing religious reading material to Christian inmates; and (6) defendant Schneiter violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by forcing him to choose between out-of-cell exercise and time spent in the prison law library.
Now before the court is defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment. From defendants' proposed findings of fact, I find the following facts to be undisputed.
Plaintiff James Kaufman was a Wisconsin Department of Corrections inmate who was released on June 12, 2007. From February 27, 2003 through September 6, 2006, plaintiff resided at Jackson Correctional Institution. He was transferred to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility on September 6, 2006, where he resided until his release on June 12, 2007. Defendant Richard Schneiter is employed by the Department of Corrections as a Correctional Services Manager at the Central Office in Madison, Wisconsin. Defendant Schneiter was the warden at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility at the time of plaintiff's arrival there until May 15, 2007, when he was succeeded by defendant Peter Huibregste. Prior to' his appointment as warden, defendant Huibregste was the deputy warden for the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility from April 2000 through May 14, 2007.
Defendant Randall Hepp is employed by the Department of Corrections as warden at Jackson Correctional Institution. He has held this position since May 20, 2004.
Defendant Cari Taylor is employed by the Department of Corrections as the deputy warden at Jackson Correctional Institution.
The Department of Corrections has a process by which inmates are reviewed for security classification, institution assignment and program assignment. This process is referred to as a program review. The program review process is set forth in Wisconsin Administrative Code DOC Chapter 302. Every Department of Corrections correctional institution has a Program Review Committee. The committee reviews and makes recommendations related to placement status for all inmates housed in Department of Corrections correctional institutions.
The Program Review Committee's recommendations are made to the Department of Corrections Bureau of Offender Classification and Movement Director or designee. The committee uses criteria established in Administrative Code 302 when considering security classification and program assignments, including factors such as the inmate's behavior and conduct record. Defendant Hepp did not participate in the review, recommendations or determination regarding the security classification, transfer or program assignment of any inmate, including plaintiff.
Institution conducted a review of plaintiff's security classification. At this time, the committee consisted of Tamera J. Waldera, Jeffrey L. Schelfelker and Timothy N. Vankirk. At the August 10, 2006 meeting, the committee considered plaintiffs conduct record, which included two major conduct reports within the preceding two days. Plaintiff had received one conduct report for exchanging 75 envelopes and 35 stamps for meals and for possessing pornographic material. Plaintiff had received another conduct report for posing as a Department of Corrections employee to obtain free samples and copies of materials.
Both conduct reports were issued as major offenses in violation of Wisconsin Administrative Code chapter DOC 303. Inmates are not allowed to exchange property items, possess pornography or pose as Department of Corrections employees to obtain free samples or documents. Allowing prisoners to exchange property items could lead to inmates buying and selling favors, including sexual favors. Allowing prisoners to possess pornography could lead prisoners to engage in fights and. strong-arm bartering, loss of inhibition and generally affect the treatment environment of the institution. Allowing prisoners to pose as a Department of Corrections employee to a private entity could lead to harm to the private entity.
Defendant Hepp knows that plaintiff named him as a defendant in a previous lawsuit. Defendant Hepp has been involved in numerous inmate-generated lawsuits throughout his tenure with the Department of Corrections.
The Wisconsin Secure Program Facility is a maximum-security correctional institution that receives and houses inmates who are serving long periods of disciplinary segregation. Inmates housed at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility have a history of non-conforming and disruptive behavior in a correctional setting, including, but not limited to gang activity, engaging in the delivery of unlawful substances, assaults against other inmates and staff, rioting and taking hostages. Many of the inmates have been found guilty of violent behavior towards other inmates or prison staff. Other inmates have been transferred administratively to the facility because of such things as gang activities or escape histories.
Taking into account the types of inmates placed at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, the facility imposes restrictive security measures for the safety of staff, other inmates, visitors and the community. All mail, including books, newspapers, magazines and other publications is monitored and scrutinized to avoid the distribution of contraband to inmates and the promotion of illegal activities or the incitation of anger and violence among inmates.
The Wisconsin Secure Program Facility has used what is known as the "Program/Disciplinary Separation Step Program" to further its goal of improving inmate behavior and preparing the inmate for return to general population. An inmate is placed into the step program on "Step One" when he receives disciplinary segregation time as a result of a conduct report disposition. The step program grants privileges and responsibilities in "steps" to an inmate who demonstrates acceptable behavior over time. The Segregation Review Team reviews each inmate in the step program every 30 days and makes recommendations related to an inmate's status to the security director and warden.
All inmates in the step program are provided with a clean mattress, lighting sufficient for reading purposes at least 12 hours a day, sanitary toilet and sink, ventilation and heating, meals, clothing, linen, soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, toilet paper, writing materials and envelopes. In addition, all inmates are allowed 25 personal letters. However, they are not allowed any periodicals, including magazines and newspapers.
Department of Corrections inmates in general population are allowed to receive books, magazines, newspapers and other publications that conform to Wisconsin Administrative Codes §§ DOC 309.04 and 309.05.
All Department of Corrections inmates are allowed to communicate with their family, friends, government officials, courts and others consistent with Department of Corrections policies and procedures. Wisconsin Administrative Code § DOC 309.04(4)(c) prohibits Department of Corrections correctional staff from delivering incoming or outgoing mail if the mail concerns an activity that, if completed, would violate the laws of Wisconsin or the United States or Department of Corrections administrative rules, or if the mail is injurious or is inconsistent with the safety, treatment or rehabilitative goals of an inmate or poses a threat to those goals.
The offenses that led to plaintiffs incarceration include possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child. A letter from Bob Bernard was rejected for delivery on or about August 21, .2006. The letter makes several references to "man/boy" relationships and to "NAMBLA," the acronym for the North American Man/Boy Love Association. If plaintiff were allowed to possess the letter, he could show it to other inmates.
Defendant Hepp reviewed the "Notice of Non-Delivery of Mail/Publication" form DOC-243 and a copy of the letter deemed to be non-deliverable. Defendant Hepp believes that the letter from Bob Bernard could be seen as advocating sexual relationships with children and, because plaintiff s conviction was for child-related offenses, it would be counterproductive and not in the best interests of plaintiffs rehabilitation efforts for him to have received the letter signed by Bernard.
An inmate's participation in religious activities is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upthegrove v. Pulver
...interest was implicated in particular case); Johnson v. Raemisch, 557 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (W.D. Wis. 2008); Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1109 (W.D. Wis. 2007). Pulver contends that CCI restricted Upthegrove's access to catalogs for these reasons:• Limiting property serves as......
-
Greene v. Teslik
...that these factors tend to blend together and are not meant to be weighed according to any precise formula." Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1108-09 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (collecting cases). Further, in weighing these factors, the court "must accord substantial deference to the profe......
-
McAtee v. Ewing
... ... blend together and are not meant to be weighed according to ... any precise formula.” Kaufman v. Schneiter , ... 524 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1108-09 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (collecting ... cases). Where “there is only minimal evidence ... ...
-
Henderson v. Meyer
...[and instead] must come forward with specific facts that would support a jury's verdict in his favor." Kaufman v. Schneiter, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1110 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (citing Van Diest Supply Co. v. Shelby County State Bank, 425 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff has not done so he......