United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DERRICK A. SANGSTER, Plaintiff,
THOMAS HINES, STEVE KICKHAVER, NATHAN CIHLAR, SHAWN FRITSCH, SANDRA HUNT, AND DALE ZANDER, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN United States District Judge
pro se plaintiff, Derrick Sangster, is a Wisconsin
state prisoner. He filed this civil rights action alleging
that, prior to his incarceration, the defendants conspired to
search his apartment and seize his property, in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. The parties have filed cross-motions
for summary judgment. The court will deny plaintiffs motion,
grant defendants' motion, and dismiss this case.
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." See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute
over "material fact" is "genuine" if
"the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.
asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must
support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B)
showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence
or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "An affidavit or declaration
used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent
to testify on the matters stated." Fed.R.Civ.P.
times relevant to this case, plaintiff lived in Wausau,
Wisconsin. Defendants Dale Zander, Thomas Hines, Nathan
Cihlar, Shawn Fritsch, Sandra Hunt, and Steve Kickhaver are
police officers for the Wausau Police Department.
claims that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights
when they searched his apartment on November 26, 2012, after
his brother, Joseph Sangster, called 911 and informed a
dispatcher that there were guns and drugs in the apartment
and he was worried for his safety. Plaintiff was not in the
apartment when police arrived. He was arrested on a warrant
shortly after they arrived, and subsequently removed from the
alleges that he did not give the officers consent to search
his apartment, and that his brother Joseph did not have a
legal right to consent to search the apartment because Joseph
did not live there. Plaintiff alleges that the officers
conspired to gain entry to his apartment to search for guns
and drugs, encouraged his brother to search the apartment for
the officers, and unlawfully seized his property. Plaintiff
claims that defendants manipulated his brother, a paranoid
schizophrenic with mental disabilities, to force entry into
the apartment and conduct a search on their behalf, as a
"private citizen, " in violation of his
constitutional rights, and conspired to do so.