Kaufman v. Schneiter
| Decision Date | 15 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-C-45-C.,07-C-45-C. |
| Citation | 474 F.Supp.2d 1014 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
| Parties | James J. KAUFMAN, Petitioner, v. Richard SCHNEITER (WSPF Warden); Peter Huibregtse (WSPF Deputy Warden); Randall Hepp (JCI Warden); Cari Taylor (JCI Deputy Warden); Cynthia Thorpe, Mary Miller and Ms. T. Gerber (WSPF Business Office), Respondents. |
James J. Kaufman, Boscobel, WI, pro se.
Corey F. Finkelmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Respondents.
In this civil action for declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, James Kaufman, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel, Wisconsin, contends that his constitutional rights have been violated by respondent prison officials in myriad ways. Jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Petitioner requests leave to proceed n forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. From the financial affidavit and trust fund account statement petitioner has given the court, I conclude that he is unable to prepay any of the fees and costs of starting this lawsuit. Nevertheless, I must still screen his complaint and dismiss any claims in it that are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek money damages from a respondent who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Petitioner will be granted leave to proceed on his claims that (1) respondent Hepp retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment; (2) respondents Schneiter, Raemsich and Huibregtse violated his First Amendment rights by upholding a prison policy under which he is denied all publications; (3) respondents Taylor and Raemisch violated his rights under the First Amendment by not delivering his September 5, 2006 letter; (4) respondents Schneiter, Raemisch 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; and (5) respondents Schneiter and Raemisch 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.
However, petitioner will be denied leave to proceed on his claims that (6) respondent Huibregtse violated his right to practice his atheist beliefs by refusing to provide him with publications about atheism in violation of the free exercise clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); (7) respondents Taylor and Hepp violated his right to practice his atheist beliefs by refusing to approve a study group for inmates who designate themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and "other" and inmates who have no religious preference, in violation of the free exercise clause and RLUIPA; (8) respondent Thorpe violated his Eighth Amendment right to medical care by denying him timely access to dental treatment; (9) unidentified prison officials violated his rights by retaining him in segregation for the full duration of his period of segregation; (10) respondents Huibregtse and Raemisch violated his right to equal protection by confining only prisoners who are not seriously mentally ill at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility; (11) respondents Schneiter and Raemisch violated his right of access to the courts by failing to provide "Shepardizing" tools in the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility's law library; and (12) respondents Gerber and Hepp violated his right of access to the courts by denying him postage for his administrative appeals.
From petitioner's complaint, supplemental complaint and the documents attached to each, I draw the following facts, construed liberally in petitioner's favor.
Petitioner James Kaufman is an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel, Wisconsin. Before September 6, 2006, petitioner was incarcerated at the Jackson Correctional Institution in Jackson, Wisconsin.
Respondent Richard Schneiter is Warden of the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.
Respondent Peter Huibregtse is Deputy Warden of the facility.
Respondent Randall Hepp is Warden of the Jackson Correctional Institution.
Respondent Cari Taylor is Deputy Warden of the Jackson Correctional Institution.
Respondent Cynthia Thorpe is Health Services Supervisor at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.
Respondent Ms. T. Gerber works in the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility's Business Office.
(Although named in the caption of the supplemental complaint, respondent Mary Miller is not identified.)
On April 14, 2006, petitioner filed a federal lawsuit, Kaufman v. Frank, Case No. 06-C-205-C, in which he named respondent Hepp as a defendant. Respondent Hepp was served with a copy of the complaint in that case on July 17, 2006.
On September 6, 2006, petitioner was notified that he would be transferred temporarily to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, a supermaximum security prison. Petitioner had no history of disruptive or violent behavior and did not meet the standards for placement at the facility. Respondent Hepp transferred petitioner in retaliation for his filing Case No. 06-C-205-C.
Petitioner filed a complaint numbered W SPF-2006-27652 challenging his placement at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. The complaint was rejected on October 6, 2006.
When petitioner arrived at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, he received a copy of the facility's inmate handbook, dated April 13, 2006. The facility utilizes a two-part behavioral system for inmates. One group of inmates, those in the High Risk Offender Program, is allowed to possess up to ten books and two periodicals in their cells at any given time. The second group of inmates, those in the "step system," is not allowed to possess any publications. Upon arrival at the facility, petitioner was placed in step 3 of the 3 — step system.
Petitioner filed an inmate complaint numbered WSPF-2006-26695, challenging the policy of prohibiting all publications to step system inmates. On September 20, 2006, respondent Schneiter dismissed the complaint, stating, "Step inmates are not allowed publications while at WSPF." Petitioner appealed the dismissal. On October 2, 2006, respondent Raemisch denied the appeal.
Among the items petitioner was denied was a copy of the local rules for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where petitioner had a pending lawsuit. The bound rules booklet was considered to be a publication and was therefore denied. Petitioner filed an inmate complaint numbered WSPF-2006-31077 regarding the denial of the rules booklet. On November 3, 2006, respondent Huibregtse dismissed the complaint. Although petitioner filed an appeal, respondent Gerber twice refused to mail it, stating that challenges to denied publications did not meet the criteria for obtaining legal loan postage beyond the annual $200 maximum authorized by Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.51.
Petitioner was denied several other items on the ground that each was a publication. These included a packet of stapled sheets containing an address list (the subject of inmate complaint WSPF-2006-33818) and a retail catalogue (the subject of inmate complaint WSPF-2006-28156). In each case, petitioner's complaint was dismissed and he was refused postage to send his appeal on the ground that the challenge raised in his complaint did not meet the facility's criteria for obtaining a legal loan extension.
On September 5, 2006, the day before his transfer to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, petitioner received a letter from a person named Robert Bernard. Prison officials refused to deliver the letter. Petitioner filed an inmate complaint numbered JCI-2006-25838, challenging prison officials' failure to explain why they did not deliver the letter to him. Respondent Taylor dismissed the complaint, stating that there was no administrative law provision that required prison officials to explain why they did not deliver specific mail items. Petitioner filed an appeal, which respondent Raemsich denied.
On March 31, 2006, petitioner submitted a request to officials at the Jackson Correctional Institution, requesting a "new religious practice": a study group for "inmates who are atheist, freethinkers, humanists, and who had selected `other' or `no preference' as their religious belief." Petitioner worded his complaint broadly on purpose because the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Religious Preference Form does not give inmates the option of designating themselves as atheists, humanists, or otherwise non-theists. Petitioner's 18-page request included a list of community groups that prison officials could contact for additional information and a list of sample literature related to petitioner's request. Prison officials did not contact any of the persons listed on petitioner's list or read any of the materials he submitted.
Relying on the advice of Jackson Correctional Institution Chaplain Myron Olson, Program Director Danielle LaCost and New Lisbon Correctional Institution Warden Timothy Lundquist, respondent Taylor denied petitioner's request, finding that it was a request for a non-religious activity. Petitioner filed inmate complaint number WSPF-2006-34092, challenging the denial. On November 27, 2006, respondent Hepp dismissed the complaint. Petitioner was denied free postage to mail his appeal on the ground that the challenge raised in his complaint did not meet the facility's criteria for obtaining legal loan postage beyond the annual maximum.
When petitioner arrived at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, he noticed that the prison's library did not contain any books on atheism. Petitioner sent the prison chaplain several requests for atheist reading materials, but received no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Astorga v. Leavenworth County Sheriff
... ... their own, at least insofar as obtaining such items is not ... inconsistent with legitimate prison interests. Kaufman v ... Schneiter , 474 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1026 (W.D. Wis. 2007) ... Here, as with his other claims, Astorga has not given us ... ...
-
Strickland v. Godinez
...claims, and considering solely his RLUIPA claim after noting the heightened protections it offers); Kaufman v. Schneiter, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1025 (W.D. Wis. 2007) ("The protections offered by the First Amendment are more limited than those extended under RLUIPA. Therefore, any claim that......
-
Johnson v. Johnnie
...# 19 tooth and # 4 tooth are sufficient to allege that Johnson suffered from a serious medical condition. See Kaufman v. Schneiter, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1027 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (a prisoner's allegations of severe pain from a tooth cutting into his tongue established a serious medical conditi......
-
Solorio v. Obama
...dormant.(Pet. at 3.) His second claim for relief is as follows:Jones IV. Burge, 164 F.Supp.2d 1096 (W.D.Wisc.2001). Kaufman v. Schneiter 474 F.Supp.2d 1014 (W.D.Wisc.2007), Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir.2006); Marange v. Fontcolot, 879 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.Tex.1995). Its federal......
-
Nonbelievers and Government Speech
...regulating prisons, atheism is a religion for purposes of an inmate’s request for an atheist study group), with Kaufman v. Schneiter, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1027 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (describing an atheist study group as more akin to a secular debate society than to a group religious practice fo......