Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Neal v. Richardson

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

June 15, 2018

PERRY R. NEAL, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

         In this 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 dismissed.

         ALLEGATIONS OF FACT [1]

         On June 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.

         On June 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 rewritten.

         On July 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.

         Neal 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.

         OPINION

         Plaintiff 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 grant relief.

         I. Double Jeopardy

         Plaintiff 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.

         II. Plaintiff's Reliance on Administrative Regulations

         Next, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.