United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ANTHONY C. CHANCY, SR., Plaintiff,
JUDY P. SMITH, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
pro se plaintiff, Anthony C. Chancy, Sr., is a
Wisconsin state prisoner. He claims that the defendants
retaliated against him for his refusal to be an informant in
a staff gang investigation and for filing inmate grievances.
The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the reasons
explained in this order, the Court will grant the
defendants' motion and dismiss this case.
was incarcerated at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution
(Oshkosh) at all times relevant. Judge Charles N. Clevert,
Jr., screened the original complaint and allowed Chancy to
proceed on claims against defendants Judy P. Smith and Carrie
Spranger based on allegations that they rejected his offender
complaints, and that Smith denied Chancy's appeal related
to Conduct Report No. 236355, both in retaliation for his
refusal to be an informant and assist staff in their
investigation of gang activity, and for filing grievances.
Judge Clevert subsequently granted Chancy's motion to
amend the complaint to add nine defendants. The case was
reassigned to this Court on March 29, 2017.
amended complaint, Chancy alleges that Oshkosh staff
retaliated against him for his refusal to be an informant and
assist staff in their investigation of the gang activity at
the institution. Specifically, in addition to his allegations
against defendants Smith and Spranger, Chancy alleges that
defendant Emil Toney interviewed him on April 19, 2014, after
a money disbursement from inmate Joseph Hammer to
Chancy's mother was intercepted. Defendant Toney
allegedly verbally abused Chancy, accused him of being a gang
member, and encouraged him to conspire against inmate Hammer.
Defendant Nicholas Nooyen issued Chancy Conduct Report No.
2363555 on May 15, 2014, related to the intercepted money
disbursement. Defendant Craig Nicholson was assigned as
Chancy's staff advocate for Conduct Report No. 2363555
and failed to ensure requested witnesses and evidence were
presented at a disciplinary hearing. Defendant Jason Mentzel
allegedly agreed to “advocate” for Chancy
regarding his being in possession of a witness form.
Defendant Sherri Amundson was in charge of processing witness
forms and did not reschedule a second disciplinary hearing
for Chancy after learning that the witnesses were not allowed
at the first disciplinary hearing. Defendants Hans Kuster,
Stan Doman, and Mary Casper were the Adjustment Committee
members who held Chancy's disciplinary hearing on June 2,
2014, and did not allow witnesses to testify. Kuster, Doman,
and Casper found Chancy guilty of charges and gave him a
disposition of 120 days in disciplinary separation.
Inmate Complaint History Report, as of September 18, 2017,
shows that he did not file an offender complaint under the
Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS) related to his
retaliation claims against any of the defendants in this
alleged in his amended complaint that he exhausted his claims
by filing inmate complaints OSCI-2014-13231, OSCI-2014-19120,
OSCI-2014-13231, Chancy complained that a witness form went
missing and that, as a result, he was refused the opportunity
to present witnesses at a conduct report hearing held on June
2, 2014. Chancy made no claims of retaliation in
OSCI-2014-13231. Defendant Spranger ultimately rejected the
conduct report because Chancy submitted it beyond the
fourteen calendar-day-limit. Chancy requested review of the
rejection of OSCI-2014-13231 but again made no claims of
retaliation. Defendant Smith upheld the rejection.
OSCI-2014-19120, Chancy complained that his mother had not
received the money that was the subject of the June 2, 2014,
disciplinary hearing. Chancy made no claims of retaliation in
OSCI-2014-19120. Defendant Spranger rejected OSCI-2014-19120
because it was untimely. Chancy requested review of the
rejection of OSCI-2014-19120 but again made no claims of
retaliation. Defendant Smith upheld the rejection.
OSCI-2014-19121, Chancy complained about Director Rex
Smith's authorization of a money transfer that was the
subject of the June 2, 2014, disciplinary hearing. He
complained that he should not have received a conduct report
(Conduct Report 2363555) because Director Smith authorized
the transfer of property, which transfer was the underlying
basis for the conduct report. Chancy made no claims of
retaliation. Defendant Spranger rejected this inmate
complaint as being untimely. Chancy appealed this rejection
but made no claims of retaliation in his appeal. Defendant
Smith upheld the rejection.
the above complaints related to Conduct Report No. 2363555,
issued to Chancy on May 14, 2014. Chancy had a disciplinary
hearing on June 2, 2014, for Conduct Report No. 2363555, at
which time the Adjustment Committee found him guilty of DOC
303.32, Enterprises and Fraud, and DOC 303.40, Unauthorized
Transfer of Property. Chancy appealed this decision to the
Warden on June 3, 2014. He did not allege any retaliation
claims in his appeal. On June 11, 2014, the Deputy Warden
affirmed the Adjustment Committee's decision.
judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). All reasonable inferences are construed
in favor of the nonmoving party. Foley v. City of
Lafayette, 359 F.3d 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). The party
opposing the motion for summary judgment must “submit
evidentiary materials that set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Siegel v.
Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 2010)
(citations omitted). “The nonmoving party must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts.” Id. Summary judgment is
properly entered against a party “who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the ...