United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OLTON L. DUMAS, Plaintiff,
VICTORIA L. TUCKER and CHLOE MOORE, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON District Judge
plaintiff Olton Dumas, a prisoner incarcerated at the Kenosha
Correctional Center, brings this action against defendants
Victoria Tucker and Chloe Moore, agents for the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections (DOC)-Division of Community
Corrections. Dumas contends that defendants violated his due
process rights by depriving him of a preliminary hearing
before revoking his extended supervision. Dumas does not
challenge his conviction or his sentence but seeks only
sides move for summary judgment. The decisive issue here is
whether Dumas admitted to violations of the conditions of his
extended supervision. If he admitted the violations, then he
was not entitled to a preliminary hearing. Defendants have
adduced a form, apparently signed and initialed on each page
by Dumas, which admits the violations. Dumas contends that
the form is not a valid admission for several reasons. None
of these reasons are persuasive, and Dumas has failed to
raise a genuine dispute of fact that he admitted at least one
violation of his supervision.
following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
April 30, 2013, Dumas began a term of extended supervision.
During the time relevant to this case, his probation and
parole agent was defendant Chloe Moore. The many terms of his
extended supervision included that he attend scheduled and
unscheduled meetings with his agent and that he not possess
or consume alcohol or illicit drugs. Dkt. 27-1, 79-80.
early March 2015, Dumas was detained briefly on a probation
hold. Shortly after he was released, about March 6, Moore
instructed Dumas to report to her office. Dumas contends that
he was to report on March 9, 2015, and when he showed up at
Moore's office, she was not there. Moore contends that
the meeting was actually scheduled for March 10. Because he
had failed to make contact with her, Moore issued a warrant
for Dumas' arrest on March 13, 2015. There is no dispute
that Dumas failed to actually contact Moore between March 6
and May 3, 2015. Dkt. 36, ¶ 21.
3, 2015, a stabbing took place at Dumas' residence; the
victim identified Dumas as the person who stabbed him. Dumas
was arrested and detained in the Rock County jail in
Janesville on charges of possession of cocaine and attempted
homicide. Defendant Victoria Tucker was a probation and
parole officer whose duties included serving as Rock County
jail liaison. Moore, whose office was in Beloit, asked Tucker
to interview Dumas in connection with the potential
revocation of his extended supervision.
interviewed Dumas and documented his responses on a form
DOC-1305. The form indicates that Dumas was informed of his
rights concerning his statement and that he consented to
Tucker's writing out Dumas's statement for him.
Dumas' DOC-1305 form includes the following:
I have not reported since 03/06/15. I was using cocaine,
alcohol, and anything else I could find to ease the pain. I
was having a lot of psychological stuff going on in my head.
On 05/03/15, I had about four or five bags of cocaine on me
when I got arrested. It was for personal use. I had a cocaine
pipe on me as well.
Dkt. 36, ¶ 47. The parties agree that this is not a
verbatim transcription of Dumas's words, but Tucker
intended to accurately paraphrase his statement. Tucker
offered to read Dumas's responses aloud but Dumas
declined this offer. Dkt. 36, ¶¶ 51-53. Tucker
asked Dumas to read the statement, confirm that it was
accurate, and sign the form. The form is signed, apparently
indicating that Dumas reviewed the statement and accepted it
as accurate. Dumas now contends that he did not sign the
form, although he does not dispute that he initialed each
12, 2015, Tucker served Dumas with papers related to his
revocation proceeding. The papers indicated that there would
be no preliminary hearing because Dumas had admitted the
violations in his statement. Dumas raised no objection to his
statement until July 22, 2015, when he filed a petition to
exclude the statement. Dumas contended in his petition that
Tucker had paraphrased and restructured his statement to make
it seem that he had admitted to a recent drug use, whereas he
was really talking about problems he had in 2013 or 2014.
Dkt. 27-5, at 5. Dumas did not, however, deny his drug use or
his failure to report.
had a final revocation hearing on August 10, 2015. Dumas was
represented by counsel. Tucker was present and available to
answer questions about Dumas's statement, but Dumas's
counsel did not call her to testify. The administrative law
judge found that Dumas violated the terms of extended
supervision, Dumas's extended supervision was revoked,
and he was sentenced to two years, ten months, and nine days
of incarceration. Dkt. 27-6, at 3.
filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening
his pleading, I allowed Dumas to proceed on his claim of a