United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
ANQUIN ST. JUNIOUS, Plaintiff,
SERGEANT HARTMAN, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
STEPHEN L. CROCKER Magistrate Judge.
se plaintiff AnQuin St. Junious is proceeding on an
Eighth Amendment claim against Sergeant Lee Hartman for
Hartman's alleged failure to protect him from harm when
he included a confidential statement made by St. Junious in a
conduct report issued to other inmates. On January 27, 2018,
Hartman, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 18.) St.
Junious failed to meet his February 27, 2017 deadline to
submit his opposition materials. On March 8, 2017, St.
Junious filed a letter (dkt. 22) requesting an extension past
March 24, which I granted, allowing him until April 7, 2017,
to oppose the motion (dkt. 23). It is now June 5, 2017 and
St. Junious has not filed anything at all. As a result, I
have taken Hartman's motion under advisal based on the
record currently before the court. For the following reasons,
I am granting Hartman's motion for summary judgment.
2014, AnQuin St. Junious was in State custody at the Chippewa
Valley Correctional Treatment Facility (CVCTF) where
Correctional Sergeant Lee Hartman worked. Hartman was
responsible for the general supervision and treatment of
inmates, which include hiring inmates for their work
positions. While at CVCTF, St. Junious often volunteered
information about other inmates to Hartman in hopes of
improving his job opportunities, or moving up his Earned
Release Program Date. Hartman never engaged St. Junious as a
confidential informant, but whenever St. Junious gave him
information, Hartman would forward it to his supervisor.
point in May of 2014, St. Junious told Hartman about another
inmate's plan to drop drugs and tobacco at CVCTF's
parking lot after his release. Hartman asked him to write a
statement about what he knew, and St. Junious agreed. In his
statement, St. Junious wrote that two inmates at CVCTF, Lane
Caskey and Joshua Hawkins, were involved in the contraband
scheme. Hartman forwarded St. Junious's statement to his
supervisor and did not take any other action related to that
statement. Hartman did not believe that St. Junious's
written statement contained confidential material. (In his
complaint, St. Junious alleges that he believed that his name
would not be subsequently used in an investigation about the
alleged scheme, but no evidence suggests that St. Junious and
Hartman discussed whether his name would be kept
on St. Junious's statement, two investigations commenced.
The first investigation looked into St. Junious himself
because his written statement included the admission that he
was planning to set up an inmate with a fake drug deal. On
May 22, 2014, St. Junious was placed in the Temporary Lock-up
Unit (TLU), which is a routine placement that takes place
when staff is investigating an issue involving an inmate. An
inmate placed in TLU is housed in a cell by himself and
segregated from other inmates.
Fliehr, a CVCTF employee, conducted that investigation and
issued St. Junious a conduct report. Hartman delivered the
conduct report to St. Junious's TLU cell on June 10,
2014. Following a disciplinary hearing that day, Lieutenant
Goettl found St. Junious guilty of violating Wis. Admin. Code
§ DOC 303.32A and sentenced him to 60 days of
disciplinary separation in the restrictive housing unit. That
conduct report is not related to St. Junious's claim in
this lawsuit, but it is undisputed that Hartman was not
involved in that investigation, in the decision to issue that
conduct report, in the subsequent disciplinary hearing, or
the decision to punish St. Junious. It is further undisputed
that St. Junious continued to be segregated from other
inmates throughout that investigation and following his
Wellington, another CVCTF employee, conducted the
investigation into St. Junious's statements inculpating
Caskey and Hawkins. Wellington prepared and issued two
conduct reports: on June 11, 2014, he issued one to Caskey
for violating Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 303.47A, Possession
of contraband-miscellaneous-attempt, and Wis. Admin. Code
§ DOC 303.47C, Possession of
Contraband-miscellaneous-conspiracy. (Dkt. 21-2.) On June 12,
2014, Wellington issued a conduct report to Hawkins for
violating Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 303.47C (Possession of
Contraband -miscellaneous). Both inmates were placed in TLU
pending a hearing on the conduct reports.
12, 2014, Hartman delivered to Caskey and Hawkins their
respective conduct reports. St. Junious's written
statement was not attached to either conduct report,
but Wellington included in his reports St. Junious's name
and the information that he had provided in his written
statement. (Id.) Wis. Admin. Code. § DOC
303.84(5), provides that if the security director concludes
that testifying would pose a risk of harm to a witness, the
hearing officer may consider confidential statements signed
under oath from that witness without revealing the
witness's identity. This was a decision to be made by
officers higher in the chain of command than Hartman. In
other words, Hartman was not responsible for deciding and did
not have authority to decide whether to treat St.
Junious's information as confidential in the conduct
reports or at the disciplinary hearings that followed. At
some point, St. Junious's written statement was made
available to Caskey and Hawkins. Hartman had nothing to do
with this decision.
Hawkins's June 18 2014 hearing, he was found guilty of
the charges in the conduct report and was sentenced to 60
days of disciplinary separation in the restrictive housing
unit. At Caskey's June 19, 2014 hearing, he also was
found guilty and also was sentenced to 60 days of
disciplinary separation. Records of these hearings indicate
that St. Junious testified at Caskey's hearing but did
not testify at Hawkins's. (See dkt. 21-2, at 13;
dkt. 21-3.) Neither Hawkins nor Caskey were released from the
restrictive housing unit between the time they received their
conduct reports and when they began serving their respective
60-day sentences. Hartman was not involved in either
disciplinary hearing process, and he has no authority to
conduct such hearings or to mete out punishment.
19, 2014, St. Junious was transferred to Stanley Correctional
Institution (SCI). Hartman was not involved in the decision
to transfer him, nor was Hartman involved in St.
Junious's placement at SCI. At SCI, St. Junious learned
that Caskey and Hawkins knew about his written statement.
According to St. Junious' complaint, which Hartman does
not contradict, Caskey and Hawkins are associated with the
“Latin Kings and ‘Native American'
tribes.” While St. Junious was outside of Unit 4 at
SCI, two Latin Kings hemmed him in at a picnic table. They
made him read his statement and told St. Junious to
“get the fuck out of Stanley Correctional Institution
before they break [his] neck or stab [him].” (Compl.,
dkt. 1, at 5.)
this confrontation, St. Junious asked to be placed in safe
custody; he was moved to segregation until he was transferred
to Jackson Correctional Institution (JCI). According to St.
Junious, inmates at JCI also saw his written statement. After
St. Junious filed a complaint, staff at JCI placed a mail
check on all incoming mail to search for copies of the
conduct reports or St. Junious's confidential statement.
Staff at JCI took no additional security steps because St.
Junious reported that he was okay residing at JCI. No one
ever laid hands on St. Junious, but he asserts in his
complaint that “My mental health has gotten Bad from
this intentional act against my safety.” Dkt. 1 at 9.
Junious claims that Hartman's use and dissemination of
St. Junious's confidential statement violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment, imposes a duty on “those
charged with the high responsibility of running prisons
… ‘to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners.'” Santiago v.
Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)). That
said, however legitimate St. Junious's fears of an
assault may have been, “it is the reasonably
preventable assault itself, rather than any fear of assault,
that gives rise to a compensable claim under the Eight
Amendment.” Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 270,
272 (7th Cir. 1996). Actual physical injury is not a filing
prerequisite, however: A prisoner may seek injunctive relief
and nominal or punitive damages where “[p]rison
officials recklessly expose a prisoner to a substantial risk
of a serious physical injury.” Smith v.
Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2011); see also
Turner v. Pollard, 564 Fed.Appx. 234, 238-39 (7th Cir.
2014) (“where . . . the record supports an inference
that a prison official is deliberately exposing an inmate to
a dangerous risk, the inmate may seek an injunction against
exposure to the risk.”). Hartman moved for summary
judgment on the grounds that: (1) he lacks sufficient
personal involvement to be ...