Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Ards v. Casiana

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

June 27, 2016

TYRONE D. ARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY CASIANA, MIKE MORRISON, THEODORE ANDERSON, DAN NORGE, RAYMOND WOODS, RANDY SCHNEIDER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER THOMPSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STELLICK, LUCAS WEBER, DAVID MELBY, JANE/JOHN DOE NURSE 1-3, and JOE REDA Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge.

         Pro se prisoner Tyrone Ards is in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), incarcerated at the Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). Plaintiff has filed a proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of basic necessities, failing to adequately respond to his threats of suicide, and using excessive force against him. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for assistance recruiting counsel. Dkt. 4.

         Plaintiff has made an initial partial payment of his filing fee, as directed by the court. The next step in this case is for me to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or asks for monetary damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, I must read the allegations of the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). After reviewing the complaint with this principle in mind, I conclude that plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because he has not provided a short and plain statement of his claims against defendants. I also note that plaintiff appears to be bringing unrelated claims against unrelated defendants, which would violate Rules 18 and 20. I will therefore dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and give him an opportunity to amend it. I will also deny plaintiff’s motion for assistance recruiting counsel.

         ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CCI, which is located in Portage, Wisconsin. Defendants are DOC employees who worked at CCI during the relevant events of this case.

         In February 2014, CCI staff placed plaintiff in clinical observation because he felt that he might harm himself. According to plaintiff, inmates on observation status did not have basic necessities. These inmates were:

• Denied showers, toothpaste and toothbrushes, combs, lotion, shampoo, and other basic hygiene products;
• Denied opportunities to floss, clip their toenails, and wear shoes or underwear;
• Denied opportunities to clean their cells, sweep or mop their floors, and disinfect their sinks;
• Forced to eat meals such as cereal and noodles without utensils;
• Given only four to eight pieces of toilet paper; and
• Denied opportunities to read magazines, send letters, and acquire forms.

         Defendants Raymond Woods, Dan Norge, Lucas Weber, David Melby, and Mike Morrison were aware of these conditions (plaintiff does not explain how) and could have addressed them. For example, Woods and Norge-both psychologists at CCI-could have authorized inmates on observation status to receive each of the items or opportunities listed above. Likewise, Weber, Melby, and Morrison-the security director at CCI, a unit manager at CCI, and a security supervisor at CCI-could have ordered that inmates on observation status receive showers and cell cleaning supplies.

         After being in observation for three weeks, plaintiff stopped eating and drinking. He lost about “10% of his BMI.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 33. Woods, Norge, and another doctor at CCI, [1] as well as defendants John/Jane Doe Nurses 1-3, were aware of plaintiff’s attempt to kill himself by not eating (again, plaintiff does not explain how they were aware of this). But these defendants did not try to stop him. ...


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.