United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
CLARENCE M. EASTERLING, Plaintiff,
DEBRA ADAMS, TIM HAINES, and CINDY O'DONNELL, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 71), GRANTING THE
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REFILE HIS RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DKT. NO. 119), AND
GRANTING HIS MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 747 AND TO FILE A
REDACTED COPY (DKT. NO. 121)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
Clarence M. Easterling, who is representing himself, is
incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF).
On June 15, 2015, Judge Rudolph Randa (the judge assigned to
the case at that time) screened the plaintiff's amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, and permitted him to
proceed on claims that eight of the nineteen defendants named
in the complaint had violated his constitutional rights when
they refused to allow him visits with his minor daughter.
Dkt. No. 20.
December 28, 2015, this court (signing on behalf of Judge
Randa, who had written the order but was not in the office to
sign it due to medical issues) granted in part
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt.
No. 61. Judge Randa dismissed five of the eight
defendants-Michael Thurmer, Richard Raemisch, Pamela Fuller,
Philip Kingston, and Jane Doe-because he found that the
plaintiff's claims against them were barred by the
statute of limitations. See id. at 3-6.
complaint, the plaintiff sought several kinds of relief. He
asked the court to issue an injunction ordering “all
defendants who have authority to do so” to allow him
visitation with his daughter. Dkt. No. 1 at 15. He asked for
a declaratory judgment, declaring that he had a right to
visitation with his daughter. Id. And he asked for
“presumed, ” compensatory and punitive damages.
Id. at 15-17. In its December 28, 2015 order, the
court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against Cindy
O'Donnell in her personal capacity, and dismissed the
plaintiff's claim for money damages against her. Dkt. No.
61 at 9. Defendant O'Donnell remained in the case only in
her official capacity, with relation to the plaintiff's
requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.
February 19, 2016, the remaining defendants (Debra Adams, Tim
Haines, and O'Donnell) filed a motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 71. That motion was fully briefed on June
29, 2016. On July 7, 2016, Judge Randa referred the
case to Magistrate Judge Patricia Gorence for mediation. Dkt.
No. 109. On August 2, 2016, the case was reassigned to this
court. On October 18, 2016, Judge Gorence advised the court
that mediation was unsuccessful, and she returned the case to
reasons explained in this decision, the court grants the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismisses
The 2004 Visitation Request and Denial at Waupun
2004, while incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution,
the plaintiff asked, in accordance with the relevant
policies, that institution officials allow him to have visits
with his three-year old daughter. Dkt. No. 106 ¶37.
Pamela Fuller (who is no longer a defendant), acting as the
warden's designee, completed a form denying that request.
Dkt. No. 105 at 4. In the form, Fuller explained,
[Warden Kingston] has reasonable grounds to believe that the
inmate's offense history indicates there may be a problem
with the proposed visitation [309.08(4)(f); [and]
[Warden Kingston] has reasonable grounds to believe that [the
proposed visitor] may be subjected to victimization.
Dkt. No. 106 at ¶39.
plaintiff appealed the denial through the inmate complaint
review system. Id. at ¶40. Inmate Complaint
Examiner (ICE) James Muenchow (who is no longer a defendant)
found that the denial complied with Wis. Admin. Code §
DOC 309.08(4)(f) and (4)(g). Id. at ¶41. He
explained that warden's decision refusing to approve a
proposed visitor is both discretionary and unconditional, and
that an ICE would not challenge or second-guess the
warden's discretion. Id. He then recommended
that the offender complaint be dismissed. Id.
Thumer (who no longer is a defendant) was a deputy warden at
Waupun at this time; he agreed with Muenchow's
recommendation and dismissed the offender complaint, finding
no reason to overrule the visitation decision. Id.
at ¶7, 42.
plaintiff appealed the decision to the Corrections Complaint
Examiner's (CCE) office, which recommended that the
appeal be dismissed. Id. at ¶43. The Office of
the Secretary accepted the CCE's recommendation, and
dismissed the appeal. Id. at ¶44. The plaintiff
also appealed the denial to Philip Kingston (who no longer is
a defendant), the warden at Waupun at that time. Id.
at ¶45. Kingston responded to the appeal with the
I am in receipt of your correspondence of 12/21/04 appealing
the denial of your daughter to your approved visiting list. I
note you have appealed this denial through the Inmate
Complaint Review System and have since received a decision
from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. The
reason for denial is clearly stated in the complaint
You ask if you will ever be allowed to visit with your
daughter while you are incarcerated. You have the ability to
influence that decision through your participation and
successful completion of recommended treatment programming.
plaintiff's recommended programming included Cognitive
Group Intervention Program, Vocational Education, Sex
Offender Treatment, and Anger Management. Id. at
Policies for Requesting Visitors at WSPF Pursuant to DAI
Policy #309.06.01 and WSPF Procedure #900.302.01, the current
process for obtaining approval for a visitor at WSPF is as
(a) The inmate is responsible for mailing a Visitor
Questionnaire form (DOC-21AA) to proposed visitors.
(b) Each proposed visitor, including minors, shall complete a
DOC-21AA form and send the completed form directly to the
facility where the inmate is currently placed.
(c) Once the DOC-21AA form is returned, it is screened for
completeness, legibility, appropriate signatures, conformance
to the allowable number of visitors on the Visitor List, and
the elapsed time since any previous denials or removals of ...