United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DANIEL L. HANSON, Plaintiff,
SEAN VAN ERMEN, and ROBERT AMUNDSON, Defendants.
ADELMAN District Judge.
Daniel Hanson, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and was granted leave to proceed on his claims that
defendants Robert Amundson and Sean Van Ermen violated his
civil rights. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Amundson
used excessive force while performing an impermissible
Terry pat-down and that Van Ermen directed nurses to
inject plaintiff with an antipsychotic drug following his
arrest on November 3, 2008. Before me now are the
parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
relevant facts are taken from the “Proposed Findings of
Fact in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment” (ECF No. 108), plaintiff's sworn motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 117), and plaintiff's sworn
response to defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 134). Facts that plaintiff failed to dispute are deemed
admitted solely for the purpose of deciding summary judgment.
Civil L. R. 56(b)(4).
is currently incarcerated at the Prairie Du Chien
Correctional Institution, although at the relevant time, he
was not incarcerated. Van Ermen and Amundson were
sheriff's deputies with the Marinette County
Sheriff's Department (MCSD).
November 3, 2008, at about 7:00 a.m., plaintiff's truck,
which he states was being driven by his son, veered into a
ditch. Plaintiff exited the truck and asked a bystander
“not to call the police because he didn't want to
go back to prison.” ECF No. 108, ¶ 4. Despite this
request, the bystander called the police. Plaintiff fled
through the woods and ended up in the yard of a residence
about 1.5 miles away.
police found plaintiff, he was lying on the ground smoking.
Plaintiff states that he was “pretty out of it”
and going in and out of consciousness. Id. ¶ 7.
When Amundson arrived, plaintiff was lying in the grass in a
fetal position and was not responding to attempts to
communicate with him. Amundson states that he immediately
smelled alcohol on plaintiff's breath.
states that he conducted a pat down of plaintiff for bulges
in his clothing in order to locate weapons that could pose a
danger to plaintiff or others. Plaintiff states that Amundson
interrupted medical personnel who were assessing plaintiff to
conduct a “rough body search.” ECF No. 117, at
30. Plaintiff asserts that Amundson went “inside his
pants up and down the legs, inside the underwear and shirt
roughly touching, pulling and stretching the bare skin to the
extent of causing excruciating pain.” Id.
Amundson disputes this characterization; he asserts that he
did not use any force during the pat-down and that his hands
remained outside of plaintiff's clothing.
was arrested (although no handcuffs were applied) for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Officers decided to
arrest plaintiff because he smelled of alcohol, was
non-responsive, and fled from the scene of a vehicle in a
ditch. Plaintiff was then transferred to a local medical
center via ambulance.
Ermen states that he followed the ambulance to the medical
center, and when he arrived, plaintiff was unconscious,
snoring, and did not respond to people shouting his name. Van
Ermen read plaintiff the “informing the accused”
form, which was required under Wisconsin's Implied
Consent Law for blood draws related to operating a vehicle
while intoxicated, and ordered a blood draw.
lab technician arrived to draw blood from plaintiff,
plaintiff woke up and became agitated. Van Ermen called for
assistance from nursing staff. When a nurse arrived,
plaintiff, who was still strapped onto a long board, ripped
off his neck brace, swung his arms at the hanging IV bags,
and broke a nurse's wrist. Van Ermen was eventually able
to handcuff both of plaintiff's arms to the bedrails.
Dennis Smith ordered a nurse to inject plaintiff with Haldol,
an antipsychotic medication. According to plaintiff, he was
given two shots of Haldol. Eventually, plaintiff fell asleep,
and the blood draw was completed.
is entitled to summary judgment if it shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). To survive a
motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party must show
that sufficient evidence exists to allow a jury to return a
verdict in its favor. Brummett v. Sinclair Broad. Grp.,
Inc., 414 F.3d 686, 692 (7th Cir. 2005). For the
purposes of deciding these motions, I resolve all factual
disputes and ...