United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DEBRADRE D. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
MORGAN DIX, and TERESA WIEGAND, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 11) AND DISMISSING THE
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights at the
Racine Correctional Institution (“RCI”). Dkt. No.
1. The court screened the complaint and allowed the plaintiff
to proceed with two claims: (1) that Morgan Dix retaliated
against the plaintiff by giving him a conduct report after he
complained about racial bias in the prison courtyard, and (2)
that Teresa Wiegand failed to intervene to prevent Dix from
retaliating against the plaintiff. Dkt. No. 7 at 7. The court
now has before it the defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 11. The court will grant the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and will dismiss
plaintiff is an inmate at RCI. Dkt. No. 16 at ¶1. The
defendants are correctional officers at RCI: Morgan Dix is a
sergeant, id. at ¶2, and Teresa Wiegand is a
unit supervisor, id. at ¶3.
September 27, 2016, Dix was in the Washington Unit courtyard
monitoring inmates. Id. at ¶ 11. She saw two
inmates walk beyond the boundary lines of the courtyard to
talk to inmates in different areas. Id. at
¶¶12, 14. According to the plaintiff, both inmates
were minorities: Anthony Miller identifies as Latino and
Demarcus Johnson is black. Dkt. No. 20 at ¶¶12, 14.
Dix ordered both inmates to go inside, as a sanction for
entering a different prison area without staff permission in
violation of the inmate handbook. Dkt. No. 16 at
¶¶10, 13, 15. Inmate Miller went inside without
incident. Id. at ¶13. Inmate Johnson wanted to
argue at first, but agreed go to inside after Dix explained
that she had just ordered another inmate to go inside for the
same reason. Id. at ¶¶16, 17. The
plaintiff was not involved in either conversation. See
id. at ¶¶12, 13, 23.
moment later, Dix saw a white inmate sitting on a flower box
at the edge of the boundary line. Id. at
¶¶19, 20. She ordered this inmate to move inside
the boundary line of the courtyard. Id. at ¶22.
She explains that she asked this inmate to move inside the
boundary line (as opposed to sending him inside the building)
because he was not all the way across the boundary line like
the other two inmates. Id. The plaintiff noticed
that inmate Johnson was going inside the building while the
white inmate simply moved inside the boundary line.
Id. at ¶¶24, 25. At this point, the
plaintiff “butted in from the other side of the
courtyard” to state that “she had to be
equal.” Id.; see also Dkt. No. 20 at
¶25. The plaintiff and Dix dispute what each of them
said during this interaction (including the general tone and
volume of the conversation, see dkt no. 20 at
¶¶26-27), but both agree that the plaintiff
intended to imply that Dix was acting racially biased. Dkt.
Nos. 16 at ¶28; 20 at ¶28. Other inmates were in
the courtyard and could see and hear the interaction between
the plaintiff and Dix. Dkt. No. 16 at ¶25.
ordered the plaintiff to go inside immediately, and stated
that she would call a supervisor and issue a conduct report
for disrespect and disruptive actions. Id. at
¶¶29, 31, 38. The plaintiff responded by implying
that he was going to file an inmate complaint about her
racial bias. Id. at ¶33. Dix doesn't
remember seeing the plaintiff pick up an inmate complaint
form, nor does she know if the plaintiff actually filed an
inmate complaint about her. Id. at ¶¶34,
35. She explains that inmate complaints are confidential
under Wis. Admin. Code §DOC 310.16, and she has no other
information on the matter. Id. at ¶36.
that day, Dix issued Conduct Report #2906095 against the
plaintiff for disrespect and disruptive conduct. Id.
at ¶44. Dix explains that accusing prison staff of
racism in front of other inmates is a serious allegation that
could cause disruption at the institution and jeopardize her
safety. Id. at ¶40. She also states that the
plaintiff was yelling at her. Id. at ¶39.
According to the plaintiff, he simply “spoke” to
her but did not yell at her. Dkt. No. 20 at ¶25.
days later, on September 29, 2016, Wiegand reviewed Conduct
Report #2906095 as a “minor
offense.” Dkt. No. 16 at ¶45, 51. The plaintiff
provided a statement that did not explain his actions, and
the plaintiff did not describe how or why he was retaliated
against. Id. at ¶¶53-, 54. Wiegand
concluded that Dix's statement supported a finding that
the plaintiff attempted to escalate the situation into a race
issue by getting other inmates' attention in a negative
and possibly volatile manner. Id. at ¶52. She
issued a disposition of ten days' building confinement.
Id. at ¶56.
Summary Judgment Standard
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011).
“Material facts” are those under the applicable
substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the
suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute
over a “material fact” is “genuine”
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
asserting that a fact is or isn't disputed must support
the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “An affidavit or declaration
used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent