United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ERIC L. HICKS, Plaintiff,
CHARLES FACKTOR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO.
45), AND DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE DEFENDANTS TO MEET WITH THE PLAINTIFF (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
Eric L. Hicks, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed this case under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging
that the defendants violated his civil rights at the Green
Bay Correctional Institution (“GBCI”). Dkt. No.
1. On March 31, 2016, Judge Rudolph Randa, who was assigned
to the case at the time, issued a screening order allowing
the plaintiff to proceed with Eighth Amendment claims against
Captain Lesatz, Correctional Officer Glades, and Complaint
Examiners Michael Mohr and Charles Facktor. Dkt. No. 8.
Defendants Mohr and Facktor have filed a motion for partial
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 30. The defendants concede that
the plaintiff's excessive force claims against Lesatz and
Glades involve disputed facts that require a trial. Dkt. No.
40 at 2. The plaintiff has filed a motion asking the court to
order the defendants to meet with him to attempt to resolve
the case short of trial. Dkt. No. 47. He also has filed a
third motion to appoint counsel. dkt. no. 45.
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
plaintiff is an inmate at GBCI. Dkt. No. 41, ¶ 1.
Michael Mohr is an Inmate Complaint Examiner
(“ICE”) at GBCI (id., ¶ 2); Charles
Facktor is a Corrections Complaint Examiner
(“CCE”) for the Department of Corrections
(id., ¶ 3).
The Undisputed Facts
case arises from an offender complaint that the plaintiff
filed on October 17, 2013 against Correctional Officer
Glades, “Unknown CO, ” and Captain Lesatz,
alleging that they used excessive force during his transfer
to disciplinary segregation. Id., ¶ 5.
According to the offender complaint, Glades and
“Unknown CO” (under the supervision of Lesatz)
went to the plaintiff's cell on October 6, 2013 to escort
him to the segregation unit. Id. Dkt. No. 33-1 at
II. Glades and “Unknown CO” cuffed the
plaintiff's wrists, and the plaintiff stated at that time
that he had an injury on his right shoulder. Id. No
one responded to the plaintiff's comment. Id.
Someone then ordered the plaintiff to kneel, and they cuffed
his ankles. Id.
and “Unknown CO” placed their hands on the
plaintiff's biceps and ordered the plaintiff to stand up.
Id. As the plaintiff stood up, Glades and
“Unknown CO” pulled up on the plaintiff's
shoulder, “forcing [the plaintiff's] shoulder to
rise slightly.” Id. at 12. The plaintiff
stated, “you're hurting me, ” but they
continued to pull upward until the plaintiff came to his
all four individuals walked down the hall toward the
segregation unit. Id. Several inmates spoke to the
plaintiff along the way, saying things like “stay up
bro” and “write me when you get a chance.”
Id. At the end of the hall, the plaintiff heard a
voice that he didn't recognize. Id. When the
plaintiff turned around to see who it was, Glades
“roughly yanked [the plaintiff's] arm upwards and
forward.” Id. at 13. The plaintiff felt
“excruciating pain that brought tears to [his] eyes,
and, made [him] yell out.” Id. He asked Lesatz
to order the COs to “lighten up” and Lesatz told
the plaintiff to “just shut up.” Id.
and “Unknown CO” continued to apply force to the
plaintiff's arms until they reached the security gate at
the end of the hall. Id. The plaintiff asked to see
a nurse, and “they” told him to file a blue slip
instead. Id. A few days later, the plaintiff went to
see the nurse, and learned that he had a “new injury to
the nerve.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3.
October 17, 2013, the plaintiff filed offender complaint
GBCI-2013-20153 regarding the incident. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 11.
Inmate Complaint Examiner (“ICE”) Mohr
interviewed Lesatz about what happened. Dkt. No. 41, ¶
6. According the ICE report, Lesatz told Mohr that the
plaintiff did not notify them of his shoulder injury until
after he was already on his feet and halfway down the hall.
Dkt. No 33-1 at 2. Lesatz stated that had the plaintiff
informed them of his injury earlier, they may have used
another method of escorting the plaintiff. Id. Based
on Lesatz's statement, Mohr concluded that there were
“no work rule violations” and he recommended
dismissing the complaint. Id.; see also
Dkt. No. 41, ¶ 7. The warden (not a defendant in the
case) accepted the recommendation, and dismissed the
complaint on November 27, 2013. Dkt. No. 41, ¶ 8.
around December 9, 2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the
decision dismissing his offender complaint. Id.,
¶ 9; Dkt. No. 33-1 at 5. Among other things, the
plaintiff asserted that videotape footage would have proved
what really happened. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 19-23. Facktor
reviewed Mohr's decision and recommended dismissing the
appeal, because Mohr's decision “reasonably and
appropriately” addressed the issue. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 6.
Facktor concluded that the plaintiff “presented no
information” to warrant recommending overturning the
decision. Id. The ...