United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
PERRY R. NEAL, Plaintiff,
REED RICHARDSON, MARIO CANZIANI, CHERYL WEBSTER, CAPTAIN CHALLONER, OFFICER HEINRICH, DARCY GRABER, LIEUTENANT K. JOHNSON, HILLARY BROWN and SERGEANT EWER, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE.
proposed civil action, pro se plaintiff Perry R. Neal
contends that his rights were violated by prison staff at the
Stanley Correctional Institution. Because Neal is
incarcerated, his complaint must be screened under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. After reviewing the complaint, the court
concludes that Neal has failed to state any claim upon which
relief may be granted. Accordingly, his complaint will be
OF FACT 
11, 2015, plaintiff Perry Neal was issued a conduct report
for washing his personal clothing in the institution washing
machines while working as a laundry worker. The conduct
report states that Neal had not signed up in advance to wash
his clothes that day as required, and he did not have a
laundry card giving him permission to do so. The conduct
report charged Neal with violating two prison rules:
“disobeying orders” and “inadequate work or
school performance.” Neal was found guilty of both
charges and punished with five days loss of day room
privileges. He was also terminated from his job as a laundry
worker. Neal appealed that decision, but it was affirmed.
29, 2015, Neal spoke to Warden Reed Richardson about this
same conduct report. Neal told Richardson that he believed
the conduct report had “procedural errors” and
did not support a finding that he had “inadequate work
or school performance.” According to Neal, Richardson
agreed and ordered that the conduct report be dismissed and
23, 2015, a second conduct report was issued, but it was
exactly the same as the first report. This time, Neal was
found guilty of “disobeying orders, ” than of the
charge for “inadequate work or school performance,
” but his job was still not reinstated in. Neal
proceeded to appeal that decision as well, arguing that it
had been “double jeopardy” to retry him for the
same conduct. Again, his appeal was dismissed.
later filed inmate complaints about the entire situation,
arguing that both of the conduct reports and all of his
discipline should be expunged and that he should be
reinstated as a laundry worker. Those inmate complaints and
subsequent appeals were all dismissed or rejected.
seeks to bring claims under the U.S. Constitution and state
law against several prison staff members who were involved in
either issuing and affirming the conduct reports against him,
terminating him from his prison job, or reviewing his inmate
complaints. Unfortunately for plaintiff, his allegations do
not implicate any federal claim upon which this court may
Neal's claim to double jeopardy is frivolous on its face.
In essence, he argues that defendants violated the double
jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment by issuing two
identical conduct reports and thereby trying him twice for
the same conduct. However, because the double jeopardy clause
limits only multiple criminal prosecutions; it does not apply
to prison disciplinary proceedings. See Garrity v.
Fiedler, 41 F.3d 1150, 1151-52 (7th Cir.1994).
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff's Reliance on Administrative Regulations
plaintiff cites various provisions of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code as a basis for relief against defendants.
As an initial matter, prison rules and regulations do not
provide a right of action unless the Legislature has granted
it. Vasquez v. Raemisch,480 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1129
(W.D. Wis. 2007) (citing Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual
Insurance Co., 103 Wis.2d 56, 74-79, 307 N.W.2d 256,
266-68 (1981)). Not only is the court not aware of any state
statute that grants such a right in this case, but this court
would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear such an action
in federal court. As a result, if plaintiff believes that
defendants violated state regulations during his disciplinary
proceedings or in handling his grievances, his remedy is a
writ of certiorari filed in ...