Gidarisingh, Sonniel v. Bittelman, Travis et al

Filing 160

ORDER denying 110 Motion for Order Preventing Slamming Of Trap Door. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 7/27/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SONNIEL R. GIDARISINGH,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-916-wmc
TRAVIS BITTELMAN, JASON
WITTERHOLT, BRIAN FRANSON,
and KELLY RICKEY,
Defendants.

On June 25, 2015, Gidarisingh (through counsel) filed a motion for order
preventing slamming of trap door. (Dkt. #110.) In the motion and attached affidavit
from Gidarisingh, plaintiff complains that beginning in April 2015, Waupun staff
members have been opening and closing his trap door in a way that triggers Gidarisingh’s
PTSD. Specifically, Gidarisingh complains of two officers: COII Joseph Beahm and COII
Andrew Moungrey.

Gidarsingh believes that the noise associated with the door is

preventing him from fully cooperating with his counsel in preparation for trial.
Gidarisingh further believes that Waupun staff, who are aware of this lawsuit (even
though it involves his time at CCI and with defendants from that institution) are
intentionally allowing the door to fall open in an effort to disrupt his prosecution of his
claims. Gidarisingh has repeatedly requested that staff stop opening his door in this way.
(One officer initially responded favorably for some period of time but has started again.)
Gidarisingh also submitted letters / complaints to the officers’ supervisors, including the
Director of Security, Anthony Meli.

Defendants filed a response to the motion, in which they (1) challenge whether
the correctional officers’ opening and closing of the trap door is actually disruptive,
pointing to instances where Gidairinsh “appeared rested and health” at depositions
“despite trap door incidents earlier those mornings” (Defs.’ Resp. (dkt. #113) 3); (2)
contend the court lacks jurisdiction over this motion since it does not concern the issues
at play in this lawsuit and seeks to enjoin third parties; and (3) explain that Meli
conducted an investigation and did not find “any intentional conduct, slamming,
knocking or other wrongdoing by staff” (id.); (4) argue that any PTSD issues should be
addressed by medical staff, and not by this court; and (5) argue that a court ruling on
this motion would present a slippery slope that “an inmate with a Court’s attention, at
any stage of litigation, could force correctional officers to alter the manner in which they
perform common and necessary activities,” thereby “pos[ing] at threat to prison
operations” (id. at 12).
At the request of the court, defendants also submitted video clips showing
approximately 130 instances of the trap door opening and closing. As best as the court
can discern from the video clips, one of the officers appears to open the key with one
hand, allowing the trap door to fall open, as compared to other officers who place their
other hand on the trap door, easing it open. From the court’s review, Gidarisingh does
not appear to be singled out in this way of opening. Indeed, although there is no sound,
it is hard to see how the long, narrow and seemingly levered slot used to slide plastic meal
trays in and out of the cell could generate much noise.

2

If Gidarisingh wishes to pursue a First Amendment retaliation claim or access to
courts claim against the Waupun correctional officers based on those officers’ manner of
opening the trap door, he must do that in a separate lawsuit. The court, however, has the
inherent authority to take certain measures to ensure that plaintiff is able to prosecute
this claim. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir.
1989) (“Inherent authority remains the means by which district judges deal with
circumstances not proscribed or specifically addressed by rule or statute, but which must
be addressed to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action.”).
While the court takes seriously allegations of correctional officer’s preventing or
otherwise interfering with an inmate’s ability to prosecute his claim, the court finds that
the evidence submitted here does not warrant what would amount to a fairly
extraordinary interference with the normal functioning of a state penal institution. In
particular, plaintiff has failed to show that the actions of Officers Beahm and Moungrey
were sufficiently egregious, deliberate or disruptive to enjoin them from treating
plaintiff’s tray slot differently from other inmates.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Sonniel Gidarisingh’s motion for
order preventing slamming of trap door (dkt. #110) is DENIED.
Entered this 27th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
3