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.

Redmond v. Moungey

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 15, 2019

JAMAR REDMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT ANDREW MOUNGEY, et al., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge

         Plaintiff Jamar Redmond, who is currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun Correctional Institution, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Sergeant Andrew Moungey, Correctional Officer Jacob Dorn, Correctional Officer Lund, and Nurse Jennifer Kacyon violated his constitutional rights. In particular, Redmond asserts that Sergeant Moungey and Officer Dorn used excessive force against him when they escorted him to his cell; Sergeant Moungey, Officer Dorn, and Nurse Kacyon were deliberately indifferent when they ignored Redmond's need for treatment related to a laceration on his arm; and Officer Dorn and Officer Lund were deliberately indifferent when they failed to protect him from a suicide attempt. Presently before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Redmond has not responded to the motion for summary judgment, and the time to do so has passed. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be granted and the case will be dismissed.

         BACKGROUND

         Because Redmond did not respond to the motion for summary judgment, Defendants' proposed findings of fact (ECF No. 24) are deemed admitted for the purposes of summary judgment. See Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission.”); Civil L.R. 56(b)(4) (“The Court will deem uncontroverted statements of material fact admitted solely for the purpose of deciding summary judgment.”). At all times relevant to this matter, Redmond was housed at Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI).

         On November 15, 2017, Officers Lund and Dorn worked second shift as correctional officers in the Restrictive Housing Unit at WCI. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Officer Lund began delivering meal trays to inmates in the Restrictive Housing Unit. Upon arrival at Redmond's cell, Officer Lund asked Redmond if he wanted his meal tray. Redmond responded that he wanted to talk to Officer Lund, but did not say what he wanted to talk about. Because Officer Lund was required to complete passing out meal trays, he told Redmond to speak to the range officer, Officer Burns, who was following behind Officer Lund. When Officer Burns approached Redmond's cell, Redmond showed her an assortment of ten pills. Although Burns told Redmond not to take the pills, Redmond did not comply with the directive and swallowed the pills. Burns then radioed for Sergeant Moungey to assist. Redmond was escorted to the strip cell and a nurse was called to evaluate him. Redmond did not make any statements to Officer Lund or Officer Dorn pertaining to self-harm or pills.

         Nurse Kacyon immediately evaluated Redmond after he swallowed the ten pills. In addition to assessing Redmond for a potential medication overdose, she noted Redmond had a superficial scratch to his left forearm. Redmond was then sent to Waupun Memorial Hospital for emergency medical attention for a potential overdose. At the hospital, Redmond was monitored for a few hours, remained asymptomatic, and was discharged to WCI. Upon his return to the prison, which occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. that same day, Redmond was placed on clinical observation status by the psychological services clinician.

         Redmond submitted three offender complaints under the Inmate Complaint Review System relating to his claims. The Institution Complaint Examiner's Office received Offender Complaint WCI-2017-30261 on November 28, 2017, in which Redmond alleged he told staff he was going to overdose and staff did nothing to help him. Complaint Examiner Moon recommended that the complaint be dismissed because she found during her investigation of the complaint that Redmond did not inform staff that he had pills until the moment he took them and that staff promptly addressed the issue. The Reviewing Authority, Warden Foster, agreed with Moon's recommendation and dismissed the complaint on December 9, 2017. Redmond filed an appeal with the Corrections Complaint Examiner's Office on December 26, 2017. The Complaint Examiner concluded the institution's response was reasonable and recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The Office of the Secretary dismissed the appeal on January 16, 2018.

         On February 8, 2018, Redmond wrote to Complaint Examiner Moon asking for the original copies of the complaints he submitted in November 2017. He attached what he claimed were carbon copies of two complaints he had filed. Although official complaint forms are not on carbon paper, inmates occasionally make their own carbon copies of documents. Complaint Examiner Moon responded on February 12, 2018, and advised Redmond that the Institution Complaint Examiner's Office never received those complaints and that he would need to submit original complaints, since the office does not accept carbon copies. When an inmate complaint is received by the Institution Complaint Examiner's Office, the Institution Complaint Examiner must review and acknowledge the complaint in writing within five working days of the date of receipt. If Redmond had submitted the two complaints in November 2017, he would have received a receipt in the mail within five days acknowledging that his complaints were received. If he had not received a receipt, he could have written to the complaint advisor at that time to inquire about his complaints. Redmond's request was submitted approximately three months after the date of the occurrence. Because Redmond did not have the originals, Moon advised him to submit new complaints.

         The Institution Complaint Examiner's Office then received Offender Complaint WCI-2018-4498 on February 21, 2018, in which Redmond alleges Sergeant Moungey and Officer Dorn slammed him against the wall and cut his arm on November 15, 2017. Complaint Examiner Moon rejected the complaint on February 21, 2018, because Redmond submitted the complaint well beyond the 14 calendar-day limit from the date of the occurrence and he did not provide good cause to extend the deadline. Redmond did not file a request for review of the rejected complaint.

         The Institution Complaint Examiner's Office also received Offender Complaint WCI-2018-4499 on February 21, 2018, in which Redmond complained that Nurse Kacyon did not give him bandages for his arm on November 15, 2017. Complaint Examiner Moon rejected the complaint on February 21, 2018, because the complaint was filed well beyond the 14 calendar-day limit from the date of the occurrence and Redmond did not provide good cause to extend the deadline. Redmond submitted a request for review of the rejected complaint with the reviewing authority, Nursing Coordinator Dittmann, on February 28, 2018. Dittmann found that the complaint was appropriately rejected.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party 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). The moving party has the burden of showing that there are no facts to support the nonmoving party's claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). All reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Foley v. City of Lafayette, 359 F.3d 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must “submit evidentiary materials that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Summary judgment is properly entered against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 694 F.3d 919, 922 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         ANALYSIS

         Redmond asserts that Sergeant Moungey and Officer Dorn used excessive force against him when they escorted him to his cell; Sergeant Moungey, Officer Dorn, and Nurse Kacyon were deliberately indifferent when they ignored Redmond's need for treatment related to a laceration on his arm; and Officer Dorn and Officer Lund were deliberately indifferent when they failed to protect him from a suicide attempt. Defendants assert that Redmond failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his excessive force and medical deliberate indifference claims. They also argue that Redmond has failed ...


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.