United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
AARON L. JACOBS, JR., Plaintiff,
SHERIFF GOSSAGE, N. DEQUAINE, LT. S. TIMRECK, J. SICKEL, and BROWN COUNTY, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT.
NO. 16), AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
plaintiff, Aaron L. Jacobs, Jr., who is confined at the Brown
County Jail ("Jail"), is representing himself. He
filed a complaint challenging the Jail's policy that
allows "stacking" of disciplinary segregation and
loss of recreation dispositions, and the Jail's policy
that the dispositions carry over when the plaintiff is
released and subsequently reenters the Jail. Dkt No. 1. On
June 9, 2016, the court screened the complaint. Dkt. No. 15.
The court determined that the plaintiff could not proceed on
the original complaint because due process did not require a
second disciplinary hearing once he already had one, because
he did not state how long he was confined in segregation, and
because to the extent that he challenged the Jail's
policy, the plaintiff did not allege that any of the
individual defendants personally took action that deprived
him of a constitutional right. Id. at 6-7. The court
directed that if the plaintiff wanted to proceed, he should
file an amended complaint addressing, (a) why he believes he
is entitled to a new hearing before being required to finish
an old segregation sanction; (b) how long he spent in
segregation on each occasion; and (c) what, if anything, each
individual defendant did to violate his constitutional
rights. Id. at 8.
20, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No.
16. The court will now screen the amended complaint under 28
Amended Complaint Allegations
amended complaint names the following defendants: Brown
County, Sheriff J. Gossage, J. Sickel, Cpl. N. Dequaine, and
Lt. S. Timreck. Dkt. No. 16 at 1. The plaintiff alleges that
he is a mentally-ill pretrial detainee and that he booked
into the Jail on January 20, 2016. Id. at 2.
According to the plaintiff, because he entered the Jail on
new charges, "by law [he] was not held to be punished
but only detained to ensure his presence at trial[.]"
Id. The plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the
Jail's Policy 12d-5(g), which Sheriff Gossage
implemented, he was placed in punitive segregation and
notified that he "owes" 851 days of punitive
segregation and 141 days "loss of recreation/24 hour
lockdown, " from previous stays at the jail.
plaintiff filed a grievance on the matter. Id.
Defendant Cpl. N. Dequaine dismissed the grievance as
unfounded. Id. The plaintiff appealed, and defendant
Lt. S. Timreck upheld Dequaine's decision. Id.
As a result, the plaintiff, "a mentally ill pretrial
detainee[, ] is forced to endure for 851 days harshly,
restrictive, cruel, unusual conditions of confinement which
presently inflict mental anguish and cause the exacerbation
of plaintiff's pre-existing mental illness."
the plaintiff alleges that since January 20, 2016, he has
been forced to endure the complete denial of the following:
family visitation and outgoing phone calls; commissary;
newspapers and magazines; bed sheets; razors and indigent
haircuts/beard trims; nail clippers; clocks; board games and
playing cards; television and radio; and schooling, Huber,
and jail law library access. Id. at 2-3. The
plaintiff asserts that these harshly restrictive conditions,
coupled with the long durations of the confinement,
"cause the mental anguish and exacerbation of
plaintiff's pre-existing mental illness as so far the
plaintiff has currently been forced to endure since January
20, 2016, a total of 147 days and counting because
plaintiff's current punitive segregation release date is
September 15, 2018." Id. at 3. In addition, the
plaintiff alleges that as a result of the long duration of
excessive harshly restrictive conditions of confinement, he
has suffered the following mental anguish and physical
internal stimuli, hallucinations, voices, suicidal and
homicidal ideations, major depression, anxiety attacks,
helpless and hopelessness, angry "black-out"
episodes, self-harm, ankle surgery aches, leg and muscle
aches, stomach aches and cramps, lethargy, back acne from
sleeping on the mattress with no sheets, scalp boils from
deprivation of shampoo, loss of familial and friendly ties,
loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, headaches.
the plaintiff alleges that the Jail has a policy to reject
mail and publications without giving the inmate a chance to
review and challenge the rejected material. Id. The
plaintiff alleges that "mail addressed to [him] was
rejected and returned to sender" on June 6, 2013; June
13, 2013; February 25, 2014; February 27, 2014; and January
9, 2015. Id. at 4. He was not allowed to view or
challenge the rejected mail. Id.
plaintiff claims that the defendants violated his rights
under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by
enforcing Policy 12d-5(g).
[T]he Policy 12d-5(g) allows a person, and in this case the
Plaintiff, upon pre-trial detention on new charges to
automatically, without committing any jail infractions, or
abusing such rights, privileges, and liberties, be deprived
of certain important constitutional protection such as the
complete ban on intimate association in personal visitation
with family and friends along with the complete ban on
placing phone calls to family and friends and the complete
ban on the possession of personal photographs of family and
friends which are all cognizable claims for violations of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
. . .
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations in coming
to jail as a pretrial detainee and automatically being forced
to endure the cruel, unusual, harshly restrictive conditions
of confinement set forth in numbers 1, 2, and 3 supra of
plaintiff's statement of claim section, especially for
long durations coupled with plaintiff's serious mental
illness, in which are not reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental objective, but are arbitrary, purposeless,
excessive, and aimed at causing mental anguish, physical and
psychological torture, and serves no other purpose but
Dkt. No. 16 at 4-5. The plaintiff also claims that the
Jails' refusal to allow him to review and challenge the
rejection of mail and publications violates his
constitutional rights. Id. at 5. The plaintiff seeks