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.

Johnson v. Kendrix

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

December 29, 2016

DARRICK D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTI KENDRIX, et al., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 43), GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 46), AND ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Darrick D. Johnson, who is representing himself, was incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail from June 26, 2012, through July 7, 2012. On May 11, 2015, the court screened the plaintiff's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and permitted him to proceed on claims that various Doe defendants unlawfully detained him in a “mental needs” unit beyond his release date, forcibly medicated him, and subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement when they turned off the water in his cell. Dkt. No. 14.

         On January 11, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute defendant Joy Parks for one of the Jane Does, dkt. no. 26, and on February 10, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute defendants Kristi Kendrix, Daniel Brodsky, and Gregory Bacon for the remaining John/Jane Does, dkt. no. 31. On June 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 43, and on July 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 46. Those motions are fully briefed and ready for the court's decision.

         I. FACTS[1]

         The Milwaukee County Police Department arrested the plaintiff on June 26, 2016, based on an active warrant for his arrest from the Chicago Police Department. Dkt. No. 48, ¶¶28, 29. The plaintiff was booked into the Milwaukee County Jail that same day under the name Derrick D. White. Id. at ¶32.

         At that time, the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department employed defendant Gregory Bacon as a corrections captain. Id. at ¶36. He was one of a number of captains on duty during the times the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Jail. Id. at ¶37. Defendant Bacon was not personally involved in the plaintiff's booking process, in any decisions relating to the conditions of his confinement, or in any decision relating to the plaintiff's release from Jail. Id. at ¶¶39, 40, and 41. In fact, defendant Bacon never met the plaintiff, and the plaintiff never expressed any concerns to defendant Bacon about the conditions of his confinement or his release from the Jail. Id. at ¶42.

         The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department employed defendant Daniel Brodsky as a correctional officer during the same period; he also was a member of the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT). Id. at ¶44. On June 30, 2016, defendant Brodsky responded to the Special Needs Pod and observed the plaintiff covered in feces, foaming at the mouth, eyes fluttering and sweating. Id. at ¶46. Defendant Brodsky, among others, assisted the plaintiff with a shower, gave him fresh linen, clothing and a clean cell. Id. at ¶¶47, 48. His interactions with the plaintiff were limited to the assistance he provided the plaintiff while he was on the Special Needs Unit. Id. at ¶55.

         The MCSD employed defendant Kristi Kendrix as a correctional officer at the relevant time. Id. at ¶56. On July 7, 2012, defendant Kendrix was assigned the duty of releasing officer. Id. at ¶57. A releasing officer does not decide who to release from the Jail. Id. at ¶61. A releasing officer releases an inmate into the community after the records department provides the proper paperwork. Id. at ¶¶59, 60. As the releasing officer, defendant Kendrix did not know which inmates were to be released until after she received the proper paperwork. Id. at ¶63. On July 7, 2012, the records department provided defendant Kendrix paperwork indicating that the plaintiff was to be released. Id. at ¶64. Defendant Kendrix processed the paperwork, and released the plaintiff that same day. Id. at ¶65.

         Defendant Joy Parks is a psychiatric social worker, working at the Jail at the relevant time. Id. at ¶69. She is not authorized to make decisions regarding the administration of medication to inmates, nor does she make decisions regarding the release of inmates from the Jail. Id. On June 28, 2012, she was paged to pod 3A following a report that the plaintiff was exhibiting bizarre behavior. Id. at ¶66. After meeting with the plaintiff, she requested that he be transferred to the Special Needs Unit for observation. Id. at ¶68.

         According to Jail logs, the plaintiff's water was turned off (it is unclear by whom) on July 5, 2012, at 11:15 p.m., because the sink faucet was running continuously and the sink was about to overflow. Dkt. 54-1 at 6. The logs do not indicate when the water was turned back on. The plaintiff's water was also turned off (again, it is unclear by whom) on July 6, 2012, at 10:35 p.m., because the plaintiff had stuffed his toilet and sink full of trash. Id. According to the Jail log, his water was turned back on at 10:54 p.m. Id.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute over ...


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.