United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 35),
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO.
49) AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT KATHY LEMENS
PAMELA PEPPER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Steven Lampley is a former Wisconsin state prisoner who is
representing himself. He filed a complaint, alleging that the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the risk
that he would attempt suicide in violation of his rights
under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Dkt. No. 1 at 2-5. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed
on that claim. Dkt. No. 17. The defendants have filed a
motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 36, as has the
plaintiff, dkt. no. 49. The court will deny the
plaintiff's motion and will grant in part and deny in
part the defendants' motion.
plaintiff was incarcerated at the Green Bay Correctional
Institution during the relevant period. See Dkt. No.
1. On the morning of June 4, 2017, defendants Correctional
Officer Jocelyn Johnson and Brad Latour were directed to move
the plaintiff from a cell in the 500-wing of the Restrictive
Housing Unit to cell 231. Dkt. No. 37 at ¶1. The
plaintiff testified in his deposition that he had been
purposefully getting conduct reports for some time, and that
he intended to serve out the remainder of his prison term in
the Restrictive Housing Unit. Id. at ¶2. He
testified that although long-term segregation could have an
adverse effect on some inmates, it did not have that effect
on him because he wanted to be there. Id. at
¶3. The plaintiff further testified that a staff member
had promised him that he would be able to remain in the
500-wing of the unit, which was a quieter unit. Id.
at ¶4. The plaintiff said that as soon as Johnson and
Latour told him he was being moved to cell 231, he knew that
this was part of a certain supervisor's new plan to move
all inmates who were refusing to leave the unit to the same
area. Id. at ¶5.
defendants assert that it is “undisputed that Plaintiff
told Johnson and Latour, who escorted Plaintiff to his new
cell, that he did not want to move cells.” Id.
at ¶6. He asked to speak with the sergeant, and he asked
to speak with staff from the psychological services unit.
Id. at ¶7. Johnson notified the sergeant on
duty and psychological services staff member that the
plaintiff wanted to speak with them. Id.
parties dispute whether the plaintiff specifically told
Johnson and Latour he was “suicidal.”
Id. at ¶9. In his deposition, the plaintiff
said he told the officers that he “might commit suicide
if you all put me up in here, ” meaning cell 231.
Id. Johnson does not recall the plaintiff telling
her on June 4, 2017 that he wanted to be placed on
observation to avoid harming himself, or stating that he was
suicidal. Dkt. No. 38 at ¶6.
Johnson notified the sergeant and psychologist of the
plaintiff's request to speak with them, the plaintiff
waited for the sergeant or psychologist to show up so that he
could talk to them about the cell transfer. Dkt. No. 37 at
¶23. The plaintiff fell asleep and later was told by
other inmates that the psychologist had come to the wing
while the plaintiff was sleeping (but these inmates
supposedly told the plaintiff the psychologist had not
stopped at the plaintiff's cell). Id.; Dkt. No.
39-1 at 64-66 (Lampley Dep.).
forty-five minutes after the plaintiff was placed in his new
cell, Latour passed out nail clippers to inmates as part of
his normal duties. Dkt. No. 37 at ¶10. The plaintiff
asked for nail clippers, and Latour gave him a pair.
Id. at ¶11. Latour then forgot to retrieve the
nail clippers. Id. The plaintiff did not tell
Latour, or anyone else, that he had the nail clippers.
Id. at ¶12. He specifically talked with Latour
the next day (June 5) about passing out nail clippers-the
plaintiff testified that he told Latour, who was a new
employee at the time, that he should pass out nail clippers
later in the day when inmates are less likely to be
sleeping-but the plaintiff did not tell Latour he had
forgotten to collect clippers from the plaintiff.
Id. at ¶13.
above-described interactions with Johnson and Latour are the
only interactions between them and the plaintiff at issue in
this case. Id. at ¶14.
6, 2017, the plaintiff told defendant Kathy Lemens, a nurse
who was doing rounds checking on inmates in the Restrictive
Housing Unit, that he needed to see a psychological services
staff member. Id. at ¶15. Later that night, the
plaintiff used the nail clippers, which he still had, to cut
his forehead, chest, and arms. Id. at ¶16. He
was pulled out of his cell and offered medical attention.
Id. at ¶17. Nursing staff cleaned the
plaintiff's wounds and applied Band Aids to his arms.
Id. The plaintiff did not need stitches or offsite
medical attention. Id. at ¶18. He then was
placed on observation for one day. Id. When the
plaintiff said he was stable, he was released from
observation. Id. at ¶19.
point after the plaintiff cut himself, a lieutenant talked to
him and told him he would not be moved from cell 231.
Id. at ¶20. The plaintiff accepted this and,
after he was released from observation, he served out the
remainder of his prison term in cell 231 without incident.
Id. at ¶21. The incident on June 6, 2017 is the
only time during the plaintiff's incarceration in which
he tried to harm himself or was placed on observation status.
Id. at ¶22.
Summary Judgment Standard
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant 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); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011).
“Material facts” are those under the applicable
substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the
suit.” See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A
dispute over a “material fact” is
“genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
asserting that a fact cannot be, or is, genuinely disputed