Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gulley-Fernandez v. Johnson

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 3, 2016



          HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA U.S. District Judge

         On March 21, 2016, the Court consolidated this case with Gulley-Fernandez v. Johnson, Case Number 15-cv-995-RTR (E.D. Wis.). (ECF No. 56.) The plaintiff filed his comprehensive amended complaint on March 31, 2016. (ECF No. 62.) He alleged that the defendants have failed to treat his gender identity disorder and mental health issues, and that the defendants have continued to house him near inmates who sexually harass and abuse him. On April 29, 2016, the Court screened the plaintiff’s comprehensive amended complaint and allowed him proceed on these claims under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 71.) The defendants filed an answer to the comprehensive amended complaint on May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 82.) The parties have filed several motions, which will be addressed herein.

         Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery

         On April 14, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending entry of the Court’s Screening Order. (ECF No. 64). This motion is moot because, as stated above, the Court screened the comprehensive amended complaint on April 29, 2016.

         Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation

         On April 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to mediate this case. (ECF No. 65.) He requests that the defendants file a motion for mediation. In response, the defendants state that they may be amenable to mediation at some point after they have had an opportunity to consider the plaintiff’s claims and file an answer. (ECF No. 75 at 2.)

         Previously, the Court advised the plaintiff that if the parties wanted to mediate the case, they should notify the Court and the Court would then refer the case to a magistrate judge for settlement proceedings. (ECF No. 56 at 9.) The Court also advised that it would not refer the case for mediation unless both parties are interested. Because both parties have not expressed an interest in mediation at this time, the Court will deny without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for mediation.

         Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Case Filings

         On April 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to lift the Court’s “embargo" on mailing documents to the Court. (ECF No. 66.) He states that for unspecified “personal reasons, " he would like to mail some documents to the Court instead of e-filing the documents. The plaintiff should provide information as to what his personal reasons are.[1] The Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion because he did not state why he wants to mail documents to the Court instead of participate in the prisoner e-filing program.

         Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief

         On April 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 67.) He requests immediate transfer to another institution based on harassment and retaliation from staff and inmates at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). Gulley states that certain defendants ordered another officer to search his property and destroy legal property. He also alleges that he is the target of repeated harassment by both inmates and guards at WSPF. He requests a transfer from WSPF to Racine, Oshkosh, or Columbia Correctional Institutions.

         In response, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs allegations do not rise to the level to support a preliminary injunction because he cannot demonstrate that he is reasonably likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, and he cannot demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm without the injunction. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is in no danger of harm from correctional staff and, to the contrary, WSPF staff members are making their best efforts to keep him safe from his own behavior. The defendants describe these efforts as follows:

In order to provide this court with as accurate a picture as reasonably possible of the challenges faced by correctional staff in managing the plaintiff, the defendants submit a declaration from a supervisor that is aware of the plaintiff’s lawsuit and his present request for injunctive relief.
As is demonstrated by Gardner's declaration, a conduct report was issued to Gulley for violating three prison policies following a cell search on March 31, 2016. (Gardner Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) The search occurred not for any retaliatory purpose but because Gulley was scheduled to be moved from Alpha unit to Echo unit, and property searches are conducted as part of the moving process. (Gardner Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.) During the search, staff found three altered magazines. (Id.) It was discovered that the magazines originally belonged to another inmate, and that Gulley used the law library typewriter to create the new labels and then affixed them to the magazines to make it appear as if they were his. (Gardner Decl., ¶¶ 10.)
At no time did staff confiscate and destroy Gulley's property or legal documents, and at no time did staff conspire for certain inmates to create a situation that would result in Gulley moving back to a restrictive housing unit. (Gardner Decl., ΒΆΒΆ 13-15.) The Boscobel staff has taken significant affirmative steps in an attempt to keep Gulley in the general population setting. Boscobel has hired inmate mentors and had two mentors ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.