United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
RYAN K. ROZAK, Plaintiff,
SCOTT RANDT, CARLA GERNETZKE, and JEREMY BAILEY, Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
Ryan K. Rozak, a prisoner at the Fox Lake Correctional
Institution, alleges that prison officials violated his First
Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing
lawsuits and grievances. In an October 25, 2017 order, I
dismissed several of Rozak's claims for his failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Dkt. 32. At the same
time, I allowed Rozak to amend his complaint with new
retaliation claims against defendants Jeremy Bailey and Carla
Gernetzke. Id. Now defendants have filed a motion
for partial summary judgment on the remaining claims: they
contend that Rozak failed to exhaust his supplemental claims,
and that he cannot succeed on one of his retaliation claims
against defendant Scott Randt because Randt's alleged
retaliatory action was not significant enough to deter
someone from exercising First Amendment rights. Rozak has
filed his own motion for summary judgment and other motions
on preliminary matters. I will deny Rozak's motions,
partially grant defendants' motion for summary judgment,
and set a schedule for resolution of the remaining claims at
has filed a motion or an extension of time, Dkt. 37, but he
does not explain what the purpose of his motion is. Because
the only deadline facing him was the dispositive motions
deadline, I will assume that that is the deadline for which
he seeks an extension. But he followed the motion for
extension with a summary judgment motion, Dkt. 40, and he
also filed materials opposing defendants' new motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. 46. So I will deny his motion for an
extension as moot.
does not submit proposed findings of fact in support of his
summary judgment motion. Instead, he states that he
“[would] like to draw [the court's] attention to
the highlighted areas referencing the defendants'
admission to guilt, ” Dkt. 40, at 1. He attaches and
highlights portions of defendants' answer and
exhaustion-related briefs, in which defendants admit that
Rozak filed various grievances, and they reiterate what Rozak
alleges defendants did to harm them. See Dkt. 40-1-3. But
defendants' reiteration of Rozak's allegations is not
proof that they are admitting those allegations to be true,
so Rozak cannot use them as evidence that his version of the
facts is correct. I will deny the portion of his motion in
which he seeks summary judgment on the substance of his
claims based on this evidence.
the portions in which Rozak refers to defendants'
admissions that he filed various grievances, I will consider
that evidence alongside the evidence raised by defendants in
their motion, discussed below.
has also filed a document titled “Motion of Discovery,
” Dkt. 38, but Rozak does not detail any information
that he has sought that defendants have failed to give him.
Rather, he states that he seeks an order under various state
and federal discovery statutes or rules. I will deny the
motion as being far too vague to present a request for relief
that this court can grant. As has already been explained to
him at the preliminary pretrial conference, see Dkt. 18, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the discovery process
in this case, and he will have to make discovery requests
under those rules before he can ask the court to intervene in
discovery disputes. I will attach to this order another copy
of the preliminary pretrial conference order.
also asks the court for copies of the documents that he has
filed with the court. He states that he had copies of those
documents but that prison staff lost them. He also says that
he does not have funds to pay for new copies himself. I will
direct the clerk of court to send him copies of those
Defendants' motion for summary judgment
dismissed some of Rozak's claims in my previous
exhaustion order, and I allowed Rozak to add other claims.
See Dkt. 32. Currently, the following claims are alive in
this case, and all of them are claims that defendants
retaliated against Rozak for filing lawsuits and grievances:
• Defendant Randt refused to hire Rozak for a “PCW
job, and he would not allow Rozak to take two pieces of fruit
out of the dining hall.
• Defendant Gernetzke harassed him and treated him
differently from other inmates. Among other things, she
forced him to go into his room while the floor was wet,
pointed her flashlight at him, and interrupted him during
• Defendant Bailey harassed him about one of his
previous lawsuits in this court, no. 15-cv-134-jdp, about the
FLCI water being contaminated with lead and copper. Bailey
pounded and kicked on his cell door and “made
embarrassing statements” about him and his lawsuit
while other inmates were around.
defendants' second motion for summary judgment, they seek
to dismiss the claims against Gernetzke and Bailey on
exhaustion grounds, and they contend that one of Rozak's
allegations against ...