Robinson v. Young
| Decision Date | 24 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-C-221-C.,86-C-221-C. |
| Citation | 674 F. Supp. 1356 |
| Parties | Theorples ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. Warren YOUNG; Gerald Heeringa; and Thomas Borgen, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Theorples Robinson, pro se.
Thomas Brush, Madison, Wis., for defendants.
This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which plaintiff claims that defendant prison officials deprived him of his right of procedural due process by upgrading various conduct reports from minor to major violations without a statement of reasons and by finding him guilty on other conduct reports without an adequate statement of reasons. Now before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendants argue that treating each of plaintiff's conduct reports as a major violation was proper. They note first that several of the conduct reports were written for violations that automatically are major, and therefore involved no discretion on the part of the security director. Second, they argue that most of the conduct reports were issued prior to May 1, 1985, and that the administrative rules governing minor and major offenses then in effect created no liberty interest in having an offense classified as minor. In any case, defendants contend that reasons for designating the reports as major appear in the record. For the conduct reports issued after May 1, 1985, defendants contend that these reports contained the required statement of reasons why the violations were being processed as major. Alternatively, defendants argue that if processing of the conduct reports as major was not proper, the case should be continued for ninety days pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to require plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants further argue that even if treating the conduct reports as major was not proper, the error was purely procedural and therefore harmless. Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff was given an adequate statement of reasons for the findings of guilt at the challenged disciplinary proceedings.
Plaintiff contends that the Wisconsin Administrative Code provisions in effect prior to May 1, 1985, as well as the current regulations, create a liberty interest in not having a violation be processed as major without a statement of reasons. Plaintiff argues that none of the challenged major conduct reports, whether issued before or after May 1, 1985, contain a statement of the reasons for the designation. Further, plaintiff contends that the disciplinary committee's reasons for the guilty findings were inadequate because they relied solely upon the conduct reports. Plaintiff argues in addition that this case should not be continued for ninety days because his administrative remedies are neither adequate nor competent. Finally, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to more than the nominal damages generally awarded for purely procedural error.
Based on the pleadings, affidavits, and certified copies of prison records filed by the parties, I find that there is no genuine issue as to the following material facts.
At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at the Waupun Correctional Institution at Waupun, Wisconsin. Defendant Young was the superintendent at Waupun, defendant Borgen was the security director, and defendant Heeringa was the former security director. Between November 30, 1980 and June 14, 1985, plaintiff was issued thirty-three conduct reports.1 All thirty-three conduct reports were treated as major violations. Plaintiff was found guilty of some or all of the violations charged in each of the conduct reports.
On April 1, 1986, plaintiff submitted an inmate complaint concerning the conduct reports described in parts I and II below. On June 19, 1986, the inmate complaint investigator recommended that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. In the summary of facts section of the report form, the investigator stated in part: "Complainant also advises this investigator that his case is currently under litigation, and was informed at the time of his interview that being that his case is pending litigation, no further action would be taken by this investigator via the ICRS Inmate Complaint Review System." The recommendation of the investigator was that: "Based on the above information, it is recommended this complaint be DISMISSED AS IT is pending litigation and as this investigator has been advised there are still issues relating to such procedure errors that have not foregone the complete litigation stage." On June 20, 1986, defendant Young affirmed the investigator's recommendation without comment.
Conduct report 023562 was issued November 30, 1980 for disrespect, disruptive conduct, and misuse of state property. The disciplinary committee's report, in the section reporting the reasons for disposition, states "2nd repeated offense on disrespect & disruptive conduct in 90 days."
Conduct report 014851 was issued December 1, 1980 for threats.
Conduct report 024074 was issued December 1, 1980 for disrespect and disruptive conduct. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states in part: "Due to seriousness of offense reprimand or partial sanction not considered."
Conduct report 024075 was issued December 1, 1980 for disobeying orders and disrespect. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "3rd repeated offense on disrespect in 90 days."
Conduct report 023555 was issued December 2, 1980 for disobeying orders and disrespect. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "3rd repeated offense in 90 day period."
Conduct report 023511 was issued December 3, 1980 for disrespect. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "3rd repeated offense within 90 day period."
Conduct report 35904 was issued May 5, 1981 for possession of intoxicants and unauthorized transfer of property. The substance that was confiscated from plaintiff tested positive for marijuana.
Conduct report 48167 was issued June 10, 1981 for disobeying orders.
Conduct report 35784 was issued July 10, 1981 for disrespect. On the face of 35784 is the notation "report # 1 of 2 reports." Attached to 35784 is conduct report 001284, which was issued July 10, 1981 for disobeying orders, disrespect, and disruptive conduct. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report on the two conduct reports states "2nd offense on Wis.Admin.Code § HSS 303.24 in 90 day period."
Conduct report 053240 was issued July 23, 1981 for lying. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states in part "seriousness of offense (lying against staff member)."
Conduct report 49603 was issued July 19, 1981 for disruptive conduct, disobeying orders, and disrespect. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "previous offenses on these rules."
Conduct report 46600 was issued November 20, 1981 for disobeying orders, damage or alteration of property, misuse of state property, and unauthorized transfer of property. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "2nd repeated offense of Wis. Admin.Code § HSS 303.24 disobeying orders in 90 day period."
Conduct report 83800 was issued March 15, 1982 for disrespect and disruptive conduct. The report of the disciplinary committee shows that plaintiff pled guilty to the charge of disrespect, and was found not guilty of the charge of disruptive conduct.
Conduct report 49833 was issued March 23, 1982 for disrespect. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "2nd repeated offense in 90 day period."
Conduct report 83808 was issued March 24, 1982 for disrespect, disruptive conduct, and threats. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states
Conduct report 98362 was issued November 27, 1982 for disrespect, disruptive conduct, and threats. The conduct report states that the complaining officer, who was taking inmates to the showers, put handcuffs on plaintiff and instituted a "pat shake." Plaintiff told the officer to "keep your hands off me." In the showers, when the officer removed the handcuffs, plaintiff said: "When you have the cuffs on me, you think your sic tough, now that the cuffs are off, let's see just how tough you are." Other inmates already in the shower area came to see what was occurring.
Conduct report 94325 was issued February 10, 1983 for disrespect, disruptive conduct, and threats. The conduct report states that plaintiff made several loud comments which caused other nearby inmates to begin shouting.
Conduct report 121854 was issued February 11, 1983 for threats, disrespect, and disruptive conduct. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "previous offense of threats on 2-8-82."
Conduct report 94367 was issued February 28, 1983 for threats. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "2nd repeated offense of Wis.Admin.Code § HSS 303.16 in 90 day period."
Conduct report 94271 was issued March 3, 1983 for threats. The reasons for disposition section of the disciplinary committee's report states "3rd repeated offense of Wis.Admin.Code § HSS 303.16 in 90 day period."
Conduct report 129059 was issued September 21, 1983 for threats, disruptive conduct, and disrespect. The conduct report states that while plaintiff was in a holding cell at the federal courthouse in Madison, he threw his bag lunch on the floor and began making abusive comments. Two other inmates in the same holding cell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd v. Davies, 64374
...a mere conclusion that the prisoner is guilty in a complex case will not satisfy the due process requirement); Robinson v. Young, 674 F.Supp. 1356, 1368 (W.D.Wis.1987) (an adequate statement of reasons "must '[point] out the essential facts upon which inferences were based' [citation omitte......
-
Staples v. Young
...of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)." Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d at 1097-98. In Robinson v. Young, 674 F.Supp. 1356 (W.D. Wis.1987) and Staples v. Traut, 675 F.Supp. 460 (W.D.Wis.1986), I held that the right to a reasoned decision is illusory unless the ......
- Schlueter v. Cozad
-
Mahler v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections
...Mahler's motions to supplement the record, which asserted that a DOC policy change adopting the requirements of Robinson v. Young, 674 F.Supp. 1356, 1367-69 (W.D.Wis.1987), applied to his case, and also that Mr. Mahler was entitled to use immunity for his testimony during his disciplinary A......