Perrote v. Percy, 78-C-27.

Decision Date11 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-C-27.,78-C-27.
Citation452 F. Supp. 604
PartiesJohn PERROTE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Donald E. PERCY, Secretary of Department of Health and Social Services, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

Corrections Legal Services Program by Carol W. Medaris, Madison, Wis., for plaintiff.

Bronson C. LaFollette, Wis. Atty. Gen. by Nadim Sahar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for defendants.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that portion of the complaint which seeks damages for the alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 committed by the defendants in connection with their removal of the plaintiff from the work/study release program in which he was enrolled while confined at the Oakhill Correctional Institution.

The defendants assert that the claim for damages is barred because the plaintiff failed to serve notice of his claim for damages upon the Wisconsin attorney general as required by § 895.45(1), Wis.Stats. (1975). The latter statute prohibits the commencement of a civil action against a state officer or employee for any act committed by the employee in the course of his duties unless a written notice of claim is first served on the attorney general within 90 days of the event causing the damage in question. The defendants in this action are state officers and employees and are alleged to have taken the acts complained of in the course of their duties as such. An affidavit has been supplied by the defendants to substantiate the assertion that the plaintiff never served a written notice of claim upon the Wisconsin attorney general.

The plaintiff argues that in an action under § 1983 a plaintiff is not required to file a notice of claim in accordance with § 895.45. The plaintiff relies on several cases which have held inapplicable state tort claim statutes in actions brought under § 1983. See e. g. Donovan v. Reinbold, 433 F.2d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 1970); Mathias v. City of Milwaukee Department of City Development, 377 F.Supp. 497 (E.D.Wis.1974); Skrapits v. Skala, 314 F.Supp. 510 (N.D.Ill. 1970).

In my opinion, the plaintiff's position is correct. The defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that a state procedural statute such as § 895.45 can be invoked to bar an action brought under § 1983. Acceptance of the defendants' position would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Waller v. Butkovich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 17 Abril 1984
    ...rights suits. Rosa v. Cantrell, 705 F.2d 1208, 1221 (10th Cir.1982); Williams v. Posey, 475 F.Supp. 133 (M.D.Ga. 1979); Perrote v. Percy, 452 F.Supp. 604 (W.D.Wisc.1978); Glover v. City of New York, 401 F.Supp. 632 (E.D.N.Y.1975). This Court agrees. The City's motion will be denied as to th......
  • Brown v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 2 Octubre 1984
    ...Williams v. Posey, 475 F.Supp. 133 (M.D.Ga.1979); Paschall v. Mayone, 454 F.Supp. 1289, 1298 (S.D.N.Y.1978); Perrote v. Percy, 452 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Wis.1978); Luker v. Nelson, 341 F.Supp. 111, 118 (N.D.Ill.1972); Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 129 Cal.Rptr. 453, 548 P.2d 1125 (1976); O......
  • Overman v. Klein
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 Octubre 1982
    ...inapplicable to a cause of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doe v. Ellis, 103 Wis.2d 581, 309 N.W.2d 375 (1981); Perrote v. Percy, 452 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Wis.1978). See also Donovan v. Reinbold, 433 F.2d 738 (9th In the instant case the district court correctly relied upon Blevins v. Fo......
  • Felder v. Casey, 85-1344
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 1987
    ...federal constitutional rights by persons acting under color of law." 103 Wis.2d at 588, 309 N.W.2d 375. The court cited Perrote v. Percy, 452 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Wis.1978), as authority. The court in Perrote said "Acceptance of the defendants' position [that the notice of claim statute should ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT