PAMELA PEPPER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Darrick D. Johnson, who is representing himself, was incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail from June 26, 2012, through July 7, 2012. On May 11, 2015, the court screened the plaintiff's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and permitted him to proceed on claims that various Doe defendants unlawfully detained him in a "mental needs" unit beyond his release date, forcibly medicated him, and subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement when they turned off the water in his cell. Dkt. No. 14.
On January 11, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute defendant Joy Parks for one of the Jane Does, dkt. no. 26, and on February 10, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute defendants Kristi Kendrix, Daniel Brodsky, and Gregory Bacon for the remaining John/Jane Does, dkt. no. 31. On June 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 43, and on July 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 46. Those motions are fully briefed and ready for the court's decision.
The Milwaukee County Police Department arrested the plaintiff on June 26, 2016, based on an active warrant for his arrest from the Chicago Police Department. Dkt. No. 48, ¶¶28, 29. The plaintiff was booked into the Milwaukee County Jail that same day under the name Derrick D. White.
At that time, the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department employed defendant Gregory Bacon as a corrections captain.
The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department employed defendant Daniel Brodsky as a correctional officer during the same period; he also was a member of the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT).
The MCSD employed defendant Kristi Kendrix as a correctional officer at the relevant time.
Defendant Joy Parks is a psychiatric social worker, working at the Jail at the relevant time.
According to Jail logs, the plaintiff's water was turned off (it is unclear by whom) on July 5, 2012, at 11:15 p.m., because the sink faucet was running continuously and the sink was about to overflow. Dkt. 54-1 at 6. The logs do not indicate when the water was turned back on. The plaintiff's water was also turned off (again, it is unclear by whom) on July 6, 2012, at 10:35 p.m., because the plaintiff had stuffed his toilet and sink full of trash.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
On June 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a one-page motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 43. It lists three claims (illegal search, false imprisonment, and cruel and unusual punishment), and sets forth the following two facts:
Dkt. No. 43.
The plaintiff did not file a supporting brief, proposed findings of fact or any supporting materials, such as answers to interrogatories, admissions, declarations or affidavits, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L. R. 56. On September 29, 2016, three months after he filed his motion, he filed a brief in support of his motion and proposed findings of fact. Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. In addition to filing these documents late, the plaintiff did not sign them, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
While the court does liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings, "pro se litigants are not entitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure or court imposed deadlines."
The defendants base their motion for summary judgment primarily on the argument that the named defendants were not personally involved in the alleged violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. For the reasons explained below, the court agrees, and will grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate, in part, that the defendant intentionally caused the alleged deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Here, the defendants all have submitted declarations describing what, if any, contact each of them had with the plaintiff during his incarceration. According to those declarations, none of the defendants were personally involved in deciding to (allegedly) improperly detain the plaintiff; none were involved in forcibly medicating the plaintiff without his knowledge or permission; and none were personally involved in allegedly subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement by turning off the water in his cell.
The plaintiff does not adequately rebut these assertions. In fact, the plaintiff filed documents that support the defendants' arguments that they were not personally involved in the alleged violations.
For example, with regard to the plaintiff's claim that he was improperly detained, the plaintiff filed a document that indicates that Captain Howard sent a verification request to the Chicago Police Department (the date on which he made the request is blacked out). Dkt. No. 62-1 at 1. This document indicates that the plaintiff was not arrested on local charges, and thus, by implication, was being held pursuant only to the outstanding Chicago warrant.
Similarly, in connection with his claim that he was forcibly injected with medication against his will, the plaintiff filed a Correctional Health Services Report completed by Beverly Felten, which indicates that the plaintiff "agreed to take a shot to quiet the voices."
Finally, to support his conditions of confinement claim, the plaintiff filed a meal log, which indicates that he consumed all but two meals from July 1, 2012, through July 5, 2012.
Putting aside the question of whether the plaintiff's documents support his claims, one thing is clear: the documents support the defendants' assertions that none of them were personally involved in the alleged violations. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
That said, the court acknowledges, based on the documents filed by the plaintiff, that he may have a viable claim against someone (most clearly in connection with his allegations that he was improperly detained longer than he should have been). Even the defendants acknowledge that the plaintiff appears to have randomly picked names from the limited discovery provided to the plaintiff by the Office of Corporation Counsel for Milwaukee County. Dkt. No. 47 at 12. Given that the plaintiff is pro se, and given that he now has the benefit of additional discovery, the court will allow the plaintiff, if he so chooses, to file an amended complaint that names the defendants who were personally involved in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. He must file an amended complaint on or before
If the plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he must use the enclosed form, and it must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be labeled "Amended Complaint." The amended complaint takes the place of the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint.
The court
The court further
The court also
The clerk of court will mail the plaintiff a blank prisoner complaint form along with a copy of this order.
