United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DEMETRIUS M. BOYD, Plaintiff,
JONI SHANNON-SHARPE, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN ADELMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
Demetrius Boyd, who is representing himself, is currently incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (“WSPF”). He filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and was allowed to proceed on his claims that defendants Anthony Broadbent, Sherri Govier, Stacey Hoem, Joni Shannon-Sharpe, David Gardner, Gary Boughton, and Mark Kartman placed him in administrative confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and in retaliation for filing inmate complaints in violation of the First Amendment. I also allowed plaintiff to proceed on a claim that Burton Cox, Jr. was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that Tracy Johnson was deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs, also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 14, 2016. They argue, among other defenses, that plaintiff failed to exhaust his due process, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to medical needs claims. They also argue that Johnson was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s mental health needs. For the reasons discussed in this decision, I grant defendants’ motion and dismiss this case.
I. RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiff has been incarcerated at WSPF, a maximum security institution, since March 6, 2013. Prior to WSPF, he was housed at Waupun Correctional Institution. He was transferred to WSPF because of his conduct. Since his arrival at WSPF, plaintiff has been housed in the Restrictive Housing Unit, formerly known as the Segregation Unit.
On February 26, 2013, prior to his transfer, an early program review committee hearing was held at Waupun to determine the most appropriate placement for plaintiff at WSPF. Waupun staff recommended the following:
Recommend Max/[WSPF] due to accepted transfer to [WSPF]. The inmate’s conduct is deplorable to say the least. He exhibits no respect for authority, rules, policies, and society in general. He also presents as someone who has no interest in learning to cope with everyday disappointments and frustrations. He is serving a very long sentence (MR/ES is 1/14/47), but he also has a lengthy criminal history. Because of his current level of behavior and misconduct, he seems best suited to [WSPF] since there are no contraindications.
(Docket #60 at 16) (emphasis in original).
As a result of the hearing, the program review committee unanimously recommended maximum custody at WSPF. As such, plaintiff was transferred to WSPF in disciplinary separation status, so he was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit upon arrival. Disciplinary separation is a punitive status. Inmates who receive disciplinary separation have proven themselves to be noncompliant with the institution’s rules of conduct. Non-compliant behavior has consequences to maintain the safety, security, and order of the institution.
Plaintiff also was placed on administrative confinement tracking, meaning that he would be reviewed every thirty days to monitor his adjustment and behavior in a segregated setting to determine if he would need to be placed on administrative confinement once his disciplinary separation sentence was completed.
A. Administrative Confinement
Administrative confinement is an involuntary, nonpunitive status for the restrictive housing confinement of an inmate whose presence in general population poses a serious threat to life, property, self, staff or other inmates, or to the security or orderly running of the institution. An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement only after review by the Administrative Confinement Review Committee (the “Committee”). The Committee re-reviews inmates in administrative confinement at least once every six months.
The Committee is made up of three members appointed by the warden. The Committee consists of one member from security, one from treatment, and one supervisor who serves as the hearing officer. An inmate may be placed in administrative confinement only if the Committee unanimously agrees on the placement. If there is not unanimous agreement, the final decision is left to the warden.
Inmates have the right to appeal the Committee’s decision to the warden within ten days of the decision, and they have the right to appeal the warden’s decision to the Division of Adult Institutions (“DAI”) Administrator within ten days of the warden’s decision.
On July 8, 2015, a Committee consisting of defendants Govier, Hoem, and Broadbent held an administrative confinement hearing for plaintiff to decide whether he should be placed in administrative confinement for his past misconduct. Plaintiff was present at the hearing with an advocate, and he submitted a written and oral statement. Plaintiff also requested the attendance of defendants Gardner and Shannon-Sharpe, whom he questioned as witnesses at the hearing.
The Committee unanimously agreed that plaintiff should be placed in administrative confinement. Plaintiff appealed the Committee’s decision to the warden, defendant Boughton, on July 9, 2015, arguing that the double jeopardy clause precluded him from being placed into administrative confinement based on his past misconduct. Plaintiff did not argue that placing him in administrative confinement violated his due process rights or that his placement was a result of retaliation. Boughton affirmed the Committee’s decision on July 21, 2015. Plaintiff did not appeal the warden’s decision to the DAI Administrator in accordance with Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 308.04(9).
However, on July 13, 2015, plaintiff filed an inmate complaint, which stated in full, “Administrative Committee using administrative confinement as a form of retaliation because I am challenging criminal convictions[.] At the July 8, 2015 Administrative Committee.” (Docket #50 ¶168.) The complaint examiner rejected the complaint in accordance with Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 310.11(5)(c) because the “inmate [did] not allege sufficient facts upon which redress may be made.” (Id. at ¶169.) Plaintiff appealed the rejection to the reviewing authority, who affirmed the rejection. Nowhere did ...