King v. Frank
| Citation | 371 F.Supp.2d 977 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-C-338-C.,04-C-338-C. |
| Parties | Kurtis L. KING, Plaintiff, v. Matthew FRANK in his official capacity; Gary R. McCaughtry, in his official and individual capacities; Curtis Janssen, in his official and individual capacities; Steven Schueler, in his official and individual capacities; Kevin Fritz; Todd Russell; Matt Robinson; Clint Schlieve; and Jennifer Opperman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Kurtis L. King, pro se.
Charles D. Hoornstra, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
In this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Kurtis King alleges that defendants, officials within the Wisconsin correctional system, violated his constitutional rights by (1) restricting his telephone usage; (2) denying him access to written publications; (3) denying him contact visits with family and friends; (4) keeping his cell illuminated 24 hours a day; (5) failing to provide him with adequate mental health care; (6) denying him prescribed medication; and (7) failing to intervene while he suffered symptoms as a result of not receiving his prescribed medication. Subject matter jurisdiction is present. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
At the time of the relevant events in this case, plaintiff was confined at the Waupun Correctional Institution in Waupun, Wisconsin. On February 14, 2005, plaintiff was transferred to the Wisconsin Resource Center in Winnebago, Wisconsin. (As noted in an earlier order, plaintiff's transfer moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and leaves only his request for money damages.)
On February 18, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims in this case. According to the schedule for briefing dispositive motions set out in the magistrate judge's preliminary pretrial conference order dated September 28, 2004, plaintiff had 30 calendar days, or until March 21, 2005, in which to oppose the motion. On March 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Affidavit Why Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Should not be Granted or Should at Least be Postponed." In an order dated March 29, 2005, I granted plaintiff a brief extension of time to respond to defendants' motion in light of his transfer from Waupun to the Wisconsin Resource Center. As a result of the extension, plaintiff had until April 4, 2005 in which to oppose defendants' motion. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion by this deadline and has not filed any documents with the court since March 25. If plaintiff believes that his March 25 filing was a proper response to defendants' motion, he is unfortunately mistaken. This court's summary judgment procedure and a memorandum for pro se litigants, both of which were sent to plaintiff, provide instructions regarding how to properly respond to a motion for summary judgment and state clearly that if a party fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, the court will accept the opposing party's proposed facts as undisputed.
Presently before the court is defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment. I will treat all of defendants' proposed findings of fact as undisputed. Defendants have introduced facts showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of plaintiff's claims. Their motion will be granted in its entirety.
I find from the facts proposed by defendants and unopposed by plaintiff that the following facts are material and undisputed.
On May 20, 2003, plaintiff Kurtis King was transferred from the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility to the Waupun Correctional Institution. At Waupun, plaintiff was placed in the health and segregation complex. Because plaintiff was in program segregation when he left the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, he was placed in the same status at Waupun from May 21, 2003 until October 17, 2003. On October 17, plaintiff was released from program segregation and placed in temporary lock-up. From November 19, 2003 until his transfer to the Wisconsin Resource Center on February 14, 2005, plaintiff was housed in administrative confinement status.
In program segregation status, an inmate progresses through a series of steps designed to encourage positive adjustment and provide an opportunity for the inmate to return to the institution's general population. The goal of the step series is to promote acceptable behavior by providing a controlled increase in privileges and responsibilities. The series itself is a process that provides inmates a chance to attain "Step Levels" and ultimate placement in the general population. When an inmate is transferred to the health and segregation complex at Waupun, he is given a handbook containing basic information, procedures and rules.
From May 20-29, 2003, plaintiff was on entry step status. He progressed to step 1 on May 29 and remained in that status until reaching step 2 on July 24, 2003. Plaintiff remained in step 2 until reaching step 3 on September 19, 2003.
Inmates in segregation are not allowed to possess publications such as magazines or newspapers because they misuse them in a number of ways. In the past, inmates have used them to plug toilets, which causes water to flow out of an inmate's cell and onto the range, requiring temporary movement of the inmate and any other inmate who may have water in his cell as a result of the plugged toilet to other cells that are dry. The property of the inmates whose cells are flooding may be damaged. Also, inmates may use pages from newspapers and magazines to cover the windows on their cell doors, preventing staff from seeing whether they are harming themselves or attempting suicide. In addition, inmates have used magazines and newspapers to make papier-mache weapons. Institution staff have retrieved several papier-mache weapons that would inflict severe injuries if used on staff or other inmates.
Inmates in segregation may receive free library books, which are made available every Saturday. Inmates in steps 1, 2 and 3, as well as those in protective confinement, temporary confinement and administrative confinement may receive two books at a time. In addition to the library books, inmates in temporary lock-up, program segregation and administrative confinement may have an address book, pocket dictionary, Bible, Koran or equivalent religious book.
The segregation handbook provides that inmates in temporary lock-up, administrative confinement, protective confinement, and steps 2 and 3 of program segregation may make phone calls. Inmates in temporary lock-up and administrative confinement are allowed one ten-minute phone call each week. Inmates in step 3 are allowed two ten-minute phone calls each month and inmates in step 2 are allowed one ten-minute phone call each month. Only inmates whose status is pending, entry step or step 1 are not allowed to use the phone. Except for the time plaintiff spent in entry step and step 1 status, he was allowed regular phone calls during his time at the institution.
Before December 2002, there were nine no-contact booths located in the health and segregation complex for inmates to use. The inmate was placed on one side of the booth and the visitor was placed on the other side. They communicated through a voice box built into the booth. In December 2002, the institution opened a new visiting center for security reasons. The visiting center is located at the front of the institution; this eliminates the need for visitors to be escorted through the prison, where they would be trapped in the event of a takeover or lockdown of the institution.
Visitors to the institution are escorted to the new visiting center where they are placed in front of a camera. The inmate is escorted to one of five visiting booths in the health and segregation complex that have been converted to televising booths and is placed in front of a camera. Both parties have monitors in their visiting areas to see each other and they can hear each other through an audio feed in the cameras. The other four no-contact booths have not been converted to accommodate televised visits. Staff use these booths when it is necessary to interview an inmate in segregation in a secure location.
The segregation handbook states that inmates in program segregation are allowed one one-hour visit each week. Inmates in temporary lock-up are allowed one one-hour visit each week day and one one-hour visit each weekend. Inmates in administrative confinement are allowed one one-hour visit each week. Plaintiff had a total of 41 visits from his pastor, friends and family from May 21, 2003 until June 1, 2004.
Modern technology does not always function properly and electronic equipment fails occasionally. Staff are not aware of problems with the televising equipment until notified by an inmate. When they are notified of a problem, they try to repair the equipment as quickly as possible. If the video equipment functions poorly during a visit, the inmate is either moved to another booth, given another visit at another time or allowed more time on his next visit with the visitor. The poor quality visit does not count against the inmate's total number of allowable visits. From May 20, 2003 to June 2, 2004, various components of the video equipment in certain booths failed to work properly on five occasions.
Staff at Waupun check on inmates several times each night for security reasons and for the welfare of the inmates. Staff must make certain that the inmates are in their cells and that they are not making weapons, attempting to escape, engaged in any suicidal or other harmful activities, damaging their cells or in need of emergency medical or mental health care. To ensure safety, staff perform this monitoring activity by observing an inmate through a window in the cell door. By...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Woodford
...in a holding cell was not unreasonable given the need for jail security and the need to monitor the prisoner); King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977, 984-85 (W.D.Wis.2005) (holding that constant illumination of cell by 9-watt fluorescent light was Constitutionally permissible); Wills, 404 F.Supp......
-
Maddox v. Berge
...on notice of his claim. Simpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303, 306 (7th Cir.2006). Moreover, although this court ruled in King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D.Wis.2005) that a 9-watt fluorescent light, even burning 24 hours a day, was not bright enough to violate the inmate's Eighth Amendment ri......
-
West v. Frank
...Particularly because even this court has upheld similar policies related to the facility's level system in the past, King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977, 984 (W.D.Wis.2005), I cannot conclude that the law in this area was sufficiently clear in 2002 to justify an award of monetary B. Equal Prot......
-
Wheeler v. Aliceson, CASE No. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC)
...need, and (2) a deliberately indifferent response to that need on the part of each Defendant causing harm. See e.g., King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977, 985 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (no deliberate indifference where undisputed that plaintiff received regular mental health treatment.) The Eighth Amend......
-
King v. Frank.
...District Court PRIVILEGES King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D.Wis. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging undue restrictions on telephone usage and access to written publications, improper cell illumination, and failure to prov......
-
King v. Frank.
...District Court LIGHTING King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D. Wis. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging undue restrictions on telephone usage and access to written publications, improper cell illumination, and failure to provi......
-
King v. Frank.
...District Court LIGHTING King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D.Wis. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging undue restrictions on telephone usage and access to written publications, improper cell illumination, and failure to provid......
-
King v. Frank.
...District Court MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS King v. Frank, 371 F.Supp.2d 977 (W.D.Wis. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging undue restrictions on telephone usage and access to written publications, improper cell illumination, and ......