United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN United States District Judge
Sean Tate is a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself. I screened his complaint and allowed him to proceed
on claims that the defendants violated his First Amendment
rights by retaliating against him for assisting other inmates
with their cases; conspired to implement a policy that
violated his First Amendment right to freedom of expression;
and conspired to destroy his personal property in violation
of Wisconsin state law. Docket No. 9. The defendants have
moved for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust
times relevant, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Oshkosh
Correctional Institution (Oshkosh) and then transferred to
the Fox Lake Correctional Institution (Fox Lake). (Plf. PFoF,
¶¶ 3, 10; Dft. PFoF, ¶ 2.) Defendants were all
employees of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. (Dft.
alleges that, because he is a jailhouse lawyer who helps
other inmates, the defendants retaliated against him by
transferring him from Oshkosh to Fox Lake, issuing him
conduct reports, and denying him access to, and later
destroying, his legal computer disk. (Plf. PFoF, ¶¶
1, 3, 10, 17, 18, 21.) Plaintiff alleges he administratively
exhausted these claims by filing the following inmate
complaints: OSCI-2016-1283, OSCI-2016-1753, OSCI-2016-2273,
FLCI-2016-5906, FLCI-2016-12224, FLCI-2016-11077,
FLCI-2016-13914, and FLCI-2016-19358. (Plf. PFoF,
¶¶ 9, 12, 15, 16-18.) The record shows plaintiff
also filed three other relevant complaints: OSCI-2016-1284,
FLCI-2016-14435, and FLCI 2016-24466. Dft. Decl, Ex. 1006-08,
OSCI-2016-1283, Plaintiff complained that defendant Officer
Kovatch retaliated against him “for beating his conduct
report, by removing/deleting [plaintiff's] legal
brief/motion from his disk.” Id., Ex. 1005-11.
He alleged he spoke with defendant C. Bryant “about the
matter 3-times and nothing was done.” Id. The
complaint was dismissed because the disk was found to be
corrupt, and there was no evidence of any tampering.
Id., Ex. 1005-08, 1005-09.The dismissal was
confirmed on appeal. Id, 1005-09.
OSCI-2016-1753, Plaintiff complained that Kovatch denied him
the ability to assist another inmate in “navigating the
court system” by denying plaintiff “access to his
intellectual property, ” which plaintiff had prepared
for the other inmate. Id., Ex. 1007-06. He alleged
he spoke with defendant C. Bryant “about the
matter…and nothing was done.” Id. The
complaint was rejected as moot. Id., Ex. 1007-04.
Plaintiff did not appeal the rejection.
OSCI-2016-2273, plaintiff complained that Kovatch had
“engaged in a series of retaliatory action[s] for
[plaintiff] beating his conduct report, ” including
having him moved from his housing unit to prevent him from
helping another inmate with his legal case. Id., Ex.
1008-012, 1008-013. The complaint was dismissed because
plaintiff “provide[d] a series of alleged events or
actions that have not been demonstrated to exist in
fact” and because plaintiff's move did not prevent
him from continuing to assist the other inmate with his legal
case. Id., Ex. 1008-06. The dismissal was affirmed
on appeal. Id., Ex. 1008-10.
FLCI-2016-5906, plaintiff complained that he was being denied
access to his legal computer disk, which he had purchased and
had sent from Oshkosh to Fox Lake, and that the action
“seems as a means to obstruct and impede my litigation
efforts already in the courts.” Id., Ex.
1009-14, 1009-15. The complaint was dismissed with
modification allowing plaintiff to have the disk sent out for
printing and returned to him at his own expense.
Id., Ex. 1009-11. The dismissal with modification
was affirmed on appeal. Id., Ex. 1009-12.
FLCI-2016-12224, plaintiff complained that Fox Lake policy
900.309.02 (library policy) violated his rights because it
“prevent[s] and den[ies]” him the ability to use
the computer to provide legal assistance to other inmates.
Id., Ex. 1011-09. The complaint was rejected as
untimely having been filed on June 13, 2016, more than 14
days after plaintiff became aware of and agreed to the policy
at issue on April 18, 2016. Id., Ex. 1011-02,
1011-03. Plaintiff's appeal asserted that he had
“attempt[ed] to resolve the matter per.
310.09(4)” prior to filing the complaint. Id.,
Ex. 1011-02. The rejection of the complaint was affirmed on
appeal. Id., Ex. 1011-05.
FLCI-2016-11077, plaintiff complained that defendant Sandra
Churchill was retaliating against him by issuing him a
conduct report. Id., Ex. 1010-08. He stated she
retaliated because plaintiff had complained about her conduct
and the library policy to defendants Chris Eplett and Randall
Hepp. Id. The complaint was rejected because it was
with regard to a “conduct report ‘that ha[d] not
been resolved.'” Id., Ex. 1010-02. The
rejection was affirmed on appeal. Id., Ex. 1010-05.
FLCI-2016-13914, plaintiff again complained that Churchill
had retaliated against him by issuing him a conduct report
because he had complained about her conduct and the library
policy to Eplett and Hepp. Id., Ex. 1012-09. The
complaint was rejected because plaintiff did “not
allege sufficient facts upon which redress may be
made.” Id., Ex. 1012-02. The rejection was
affirmed on appeal. Id., Ex. 1012-05.
FLCI-2016-19358, plaintiff complained that Eplett confiscated
his legal computer disk “to deprive [plaintiff] of
[his] legal property.” Id., Ex. 1015-10. The
complaint was rejected as untimely because the plaintiff
failed to file it within 14 days after the completion of the
appeal of the conduct report that involved the disk.
Id., Ex. 1015-02. The rejection was affirmed on
appeal. Id., Ex. 1015-07.
OSCI-2016-1284, plaintiff again complained that Kovatch was
retaliating against him because he had “succeeded in
beating his conduct report.” Id., Ex. 1006-08.
The complaint was rejected because plaintiff failed to allege
sufficient facts to support the claim. ...