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.

Williams v. Parker

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

March 1, 2018

TRAVIS DELANEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORAL PARKER, SHERIFF DAVID BETH, OFFICER UELMEN, and SERGEANT MIKUTIS, et al., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge United States District Court.

         Plaintiff Travis Delaney Williams, who is currently representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Kenosha County Detention Center (KCDC) (also referred to by the parties as the Kenosha County Jail). On September 10, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Pamela Pepper (the judge assigned to the case at that time) allowed plaintiff to proceed on the following claims against defendants Corporal James Parker, Sheriff David Beth, Officer Mark Uelmen, and Sergeant Kurt Mikutis (the County Defendants)[1]:

(1) A claim against Uelmen based on plaintiff's allegations that he denied medications to plaintiff on December 7, 2014, after plaintiff refused to sign a release of responsibility form.
(2) A claim against Parker based on plaintiff's allegations that he refused to acknowledge or respond to plaintiff's complaints or grievances.
(3) A claim against Mikutis in his official capacity based on plaintiff's allegations that there was no policy or procedure for investigating officer misconduct.
(4) A claim against Beth in his official capacity based on plaintiff's allegations of unconstitutional policies or procedures regarding medical care, grievances, inmate clothing, mattresses, cleanliness of cells and showers, food, heat, ventilation, religious items, and other conditions of confinement. ECF No. 12 at 12-19.[2]

         Currently before the court is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 107, and the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 143. For the following reasons, the court will grant the County Defendants' motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff's motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff's complaint relates to incidents that allegedly occurred between October 2014, when plaintiff arrived at KCDC, and December 2014, when plaintiff filed his federal lawsuit.

         A. Plaintiff's Allegations against Defendant Uelmen

         On December 6, 2014, the KCDC doctor reduced plaintiff's prescription for Ibuprofen from three times per day to two times per day. ECF No. 127 ¶ 19. The next day, Uelmen requested that plaintiff sign a release from medical responsibility because plaintiff refused to have his blood pressure and pulse taken. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff often refused to take his medications and to have his blood pressure taken. Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff refused to sign the form. Id. at ¶ 13.

         Uelmen asserts that he never intimidated or improperly pressured plaintiff to have his blood pressure tested or to sign the release of responsibility form, nor did he request that anyone change plaintiff's medications after he refused to sign the form. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. Uelmen explains that, as an officer, he has no role in deciding which medications are given, how often they are given, or what dosage is given; those determinations are made by medical personnel. Id. at ¶ 17. Uelmen also states that he was not aware that plaintiff was not given his medications on December 7, 2014. Id. at ¶ 18.

         B. Plaintiff's Allegations against Defendant Parker

         Plaintiff alleges that Parker ignored the grievances he filed while at KCDC. According to defendants, plaintiff filed only two grievances, neither of which were relevant to plaintiff's allegations against the County Defendants. ECF No. 127 ¶ 9. Plaintiff disputes defendants' assertion; he explains that he filed many grievances during that time, including grievances that complained about the ...


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.