Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J.J v. Litscher

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

July 10, 2017

J.J., by and through his next friend Sakeena Jackson; K.D., hy and through her next friends John Levy and Meranda Davis; CM., hy and through his next friend Toinette Ducksworth; R.N., hy and through his next friend Gloria Norwood; M.S., hy and through his next friend Jolene Waupekanay; A.V., by and through his next friend Veronica Rocha-Montejano; M.R., by and through his next friend Autumn Rodgers; S.K., by and through her next friend Thomas Korn; and A.P., by and through her next friend Louise Plaskey, Plaintiffs,
v.
JON E. LITSCHER, JOHN D. PAQUIN, WENDY A. PETERSON, and BRIAN GUSTKE, Defendants.

          PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

          JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge.

         Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a), and for the reasons set forth in the court's June 23, 2017 oral ruling and order, Dkt. 65:

1. The prospective relief granted by this preliminary injunction is narrowly drawn and extends no further than necessary to correct the harm to plaintiffs warranting preliminary relief.
2. The prospective relief granted by this preliminary injunction is the least intrusive means of correcting the ongoing harm to plaintiffs.
3. The court makes these findings having given substantial weight to and consideration of any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
4. The prospective relief granted by this preliminary injunction complies with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

         IT IS ORDERED that:

         Defendants Jon E. Litscher, John D. Paquin, Wendy A. Peterson, and Brian Gustke, in their official capacities, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those acting in concert with them, are preliminarily enjoined as follows, pending a final judgment in this matter:

         A. Disciplinary and punitive restrictive housing

         Defendants are enjoined from using disciplinary or punitive restrictive housing or any other form of disciplinary or punitive solitary confinement in any manner inconsistent with the following:

1. Defendants shall not place youth in the restrictive housing units at Lincoln Hills School and Copper Lake School (LHS/CLS) for disciplinary or punitive purposes for minor infractions and non-violent offenses. A violent offense is an action causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another person. This provision shall go into effect as of August 14, 2017.
2. Defendants may place youth with mental health diagnoses (a mental health code designation of MH-1, MH-2a, MH-2b, or ID) in restrictive housing, but such placements will be reviewed by a PSU staff member to determine whether that placement is a contra indication to the youth's mental health or if other options will adequately protect the youth or staff. If such a youth remains in pre-hearing security after the initial review process (described in 1.3. below), and if he or she has a designated mental health code, a review as noted in this section will occur immediately by a PSU staff member. This review will be conducted in person unless, due to staffing limitations, no PSU staff is personally available, in which case it may occur by phone or video conferencing.
3. Effective July 21, 2017, defendants shall not confine youth in pre-hearing security (PHS) unless the youth presents an immediate and substantial risk of great bodily harm to self or others. Should defendants determine that such risk exists and that such placement is necessary, defendants shall, within four hours of such placement, conduct an initial review of each youth brought to RHU for PHS to determine whether such placement is necessary and whether release of the youth back to general population will jeopardize the safety of the youth, staff, or facility. If the decision is made to retain the youth in RHU, a second review will occur within four hours of the initial review, and release/retention will be judged by the actions and behavior of the youth since the initial review. A determination that a youth should continue in PHS for more than four hours must be approved by the superintendent or designee.
4. Effective July 21, 2017, defendants shall limit the maximum length of a disposition that includes any placement in RHU for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.