Goodvine v. Eckstein et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and granting 9 Motion to Transfer to Green Bay Division of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 7/15/2016. (jef),(ps)[Transferred from wiwd on 7/20/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
16-cv-416-wmc
MR. ECKSTEIN, MR. KIND, DR. STONEFIELD,
MR. VANDEWALLE, MS. FRANCOIS,
DR. ANKARLO, DR. CHING and MS. LUTSEN,
Defendants.

In this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Christopher Goodvine, an
inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution (“GBCI”), alleges that several defendants at
GBCI have been deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs, including by: (1) his
placement in segregation; (2) denial of medications (after he overdosed); and (3) lack of
any meaningful mental health treatment.

This court previously screened Goodvine’s

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and allowed him to proceed on these claims.
(Dkt. #6.)

During a telephonic status conference held today, the court took up

plaintiff’s filing a motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #3), which was denied without
prejudice as moot, and the defendants’ motion for change of venue (dkt. #9), which was
granted.
As for the motion for preliminary injunction, Goodvine acknowledged during the
status conference that:


While all of his medications had been stopped after an overdose, his
prescription for Seroquel has since been reinstated;



He has received at least 33 “clinical contacts” with PSU staff since
arriving at GBCI on March 11, 2016, although many were
perfunctory check ins at his door;



His doctors at GBCI have developed a behavior management plan
that describes responsibilities for Goodvine, security, psychiatry and
PSU with respect to Goodvine’s mental health treatment, including
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy programming;



He has been told that if he achieves target behaviors under the plan
for 3 continuous months, his requested transfer to WRC will be
considered; and



As a result of the above, he acknowledges that no further
preliminary relief is necessary at this time.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction will be denied without
prejudice as moot.
With this immediate issue out of the way, the court will grant defendants’ motion
to transfer for three reasons. First, the incidents giving rise to the complaint occurred at
the Green Bay Correctional Institution, where plaintiff is currently in custody. Second, it
appears that plaintiff and all of the named defendants are located in or near Green Bay,
or at least work at GBCI. Third, plaintiff has had several cases in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, including as Goodvine acknowledged during the status conference, a recently
filed case with the same named defendants. A transfer and possible consolidation of these
two case would, therefore, appear to be in the interests of judicial economy. Accordingly,
the court will exercise its discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and §
1406(a), and transfer this case to the Green Bay Division of the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.1

1

In addition, the plaintiff indicates he has had difficulty reaching his fiancé to pay his filing fee.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #3) is DENIED without
prejudice as moot; and
2) defendants’ motion to transfer to the Green Bay Division of the Eastern District
of Wisconsin (dkt. #9) is GRANTED.
Entered this 15th day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

Plaintiff is encouraged to take all reasonable steps to expedite the filing of that fee. Regardless,
that is an issue for the Eastern District to address upon transfer.

3