Soto, Jose v. Suliene, Dalia et al

Filing 230

ORDER that plaintiff Jose Soto's motion for emergency injunctive relief and sanctions, dkt. 218 , and motion for reconsideration, dkt. 227 , are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/9/2021. (lam),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOSE SOTO,
v.

Plaintiff,

ORDER
11-cv-567-slc

CATHY JESS,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff and prisoner Jose Soto has filed yet another motion for the court’s
assistance in enforcing the 2013 settlement agreement that he reached in this case with the
Department of Corrections regarding his need for custom orthotics and shoes. Dkt. 218.
According to the parties’ settlement agreement, “[i]f Soto is housed in segregation at any DOC
institution, he shall be provided with black Velcro shoes and arch support inserts, at DOC’s cost
and without any monetary contribution by Soto.” Dkt. 152, exh. 1 at ¶ 2. In a terse filing
entitled “Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Sanctions Against Defendants for
Willfully Breaching Settlement,” Soto alleges that he was placed in segregation on September
7, 2021 without his velcro shoes and had not received them as of September 23, 2021, even
though he notified Lieutenant Marwitcz and other prison staff about needing the special shoes.
Soto also alleges that he is suffering pain in his back and lower extremities without the shoes.
Dkt. 218.
In response to Soto’s motion, defendant Cathy Jess submitted a declaration from Captain
Kyle Tritt, who avers that the property department received Soto’s shoes and other property on
September 7 but was not able to inventory it until September 17 because of staffing shortages.
Dkt. 222 at ¶ 4. However, Tritt avers that Soto was given his special shoes on September 21
and confirms that staff know about the settlement agreement and Soto’s need for the shoes. Id.

In an unsolicited reply brief, Soto contends that Tritt lied because Soto “was not issued
his shoes until October 8th or so.” Dkt. 223 at 2. Given the discrepancy, and to complete the
record, I gave defendant an opportunity to respond, dkt. 226, and Tritt confirmed that Soto was
given his shoes on September 21, dkt. 229. Soto moved for reconsideration of that order,
arguing that a hearing is necessary to resolve a factual dispute. Dkt. 227. However, a hearing
would not be helpful. Even though the parties disagree about when Soto received his shoes, Soto
agrees that he now has them.
“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that: (1) without this relief,
[he] will suffer irreparable harm; (2) traditional legal remedies would be inadequate; and (3) it
has some likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claims.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818
(7th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Soto’s circumstances fail to
satisfy the threshold requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. Although it appears that
Soto was without his velcro shoes for a few weeks, his request is now moot. Regardless of when
Soto received his shoes, he cannot show that he will suffer irreparable harm if I decline his
requested relief because he has in fact received his shoes.
Soto also asks that I impose sanctions to punish defendant’s willful violation of the
settlement agreement and compensate him for his resulting pain and suffering. The Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that “[a] court’s civil contempt power rests in its
inherent limited authority to enforce compliance with court orders and ensure judicial
proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner.” Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709,
737-38 (7th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). In addition, civil contempt sanctions serve
the remedial purpose of compensating the complainant for losses sustained as a result of the
misconduct. Id.; see also Feltner v. Title Search Co., 283 F.3d 838, 841 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing id.)

2

(“Coercive sanctions are used to induce compliance with court orders in the future, while
remedial sanctions compensate an aggrieved party for losses sustained for past disobedience of
a court’s order.”). To sustain a claim for civil contempt, Soto must show that: (1) a court order
set forth an unambiguous command; (2) defendant violated that command; (3) the violation was
significant, meaning that defendant did not substantially comply with the order; and (4)
defendant failed to take steps to reasonably and diligently comply with the order. Prima Tek II,
L.L.C. v. Klerk’s Plastic Indus., B.V., 525 F.3d 533, 542 (7th Cir. 2008).
Although I understand that Soto is frustrated because he has had problems with getting
his shoes in the past and he experiences pain when he is not wearing the shoes, defendant’s
conduct and the delay in providing Soto’s shoes were not so significant or egregious to warrant
sanctions in this instance. Once Soto’s property from his regular cell could be inventoried, he
was given his shoes. In his reply brief and motion for reconsideration, Soto argues that the fact
that Tritt insists that Soto received his shoes on September 21 shows malicious intent on the
part of Tritt and defendant. However, there is no evidence that anyone purposefully denied
Soto his shoes in breach of the settlement agreement or that they intended to harm him in any
way.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jose Soto’s motion for emergency injunctive
relief and sanctions, dkt. 218, and motion for reconsideration, dkt. 227, are DENIED.
Entered this 9th day of November, 2021.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

3