Tatum, Robert et al v. Meisner, Mike et al

Filing 253

ORDER that plaintiff's motions for a finding of contempt and sanctions (dkt. ## 240 , 250 , 251 , 252 ) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/21/2022. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ROBERT TATUM, and all similarly situated
DOC/CCI Inmates,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
13-cv-044-wmc

MICHAEL MEISNER and CATHY JESS,
Defendants.
On September 27, 2017, the court entered judgment in this case. (Dkt. #156; see
also dkt. #169 (entering amended judgment awarding costs).) Since then, the court has
issued at least six orders, addressing over 20 motions by plaintiff. The court has continually
advised Tatum that no further relief would be provided in this lawsuit. Still, plaintiff
continues to file motions seeking contempt. The court addresses his most recent motions
in this order, rejecting his request for relief in both.
In the first motion and supplements, Tatum seeks a finding of contempt based on
Green Bay Correctional Institution’s failure to prevent missing items from his Nation of
Islam (“NOI”) diet trays, specifically raising concerns about the lack of tape on some of
the meal bags used to prevent tampering by correctional officers and failure to consistently
provide navy beans, instead for some period of time providing great northern beans, which
are not NOI-compliant. (Dkt. ##240, 251, 252.) In response, defendants acknowledge
that there was a temporary issue with wrong beans, indicating that because of staffing
shortages in the kitchen, Tatum was provided a great navy bean, but that error has since
been corrected, and was corrected once Tatum raised the issue with the kitchen staff.

(Defs.’ Opp’n (dkt. #245) 3-4 (citing Blackburn Decl. (dkt. #246) ¶¶ 8-9).) While Tatum
contends that he was provided the wrong bean for a longer period of time than defendants
acknowledge, the court again finds this to be an innocent mistake and sees no basis to
sanction defendants.
As for other missing items or tampering claims, defendants maintain that they are
not aware of missing items or any concerns about tampering. It appears that Tatum is
upset that Green Bay changed the process by which his meals were delivered in light of
COVID protocols. Before COVID, a chef personally delivered his meal bags to him. Now,
however, an officer delivers his meals, which, in Tatum’s opinion, increases the
opportunities for tampering. (Defs.’ Opp’n (dkt. #245) 3 (citing Blackburn Decl. (dkt.
#246) ¶ 7).) Still, defendants explain that the chef delivers Tatum’s meals to an officer,
who in turn waits until Tatum verifies the contents and reports any concerns to the officer
who relays them to the chef.

(Id.) This process sufficiently addresses Tatum’s prior

concerns about meal tampering, and the court sees no reason to sanction defendants or
otherwise modify the injunction. As for evidence of missing items, at most, plaintiff has
evidence that he complained about missing food items on one day November 4, 2020, but
this isolated incident -- even if the kitchen staff failed to acknowledge his complaint -- does
not rise to the level of a violation of this court’s injunction warranting sanctions. As the
court has previously explained, given the specificity of the NOI diet and Tatum’s frequent
complaining, some missteps in compliance with the injunction and response to Tatum’s
grumbles are understandable.

2

Second, Tatum also seeks sanctions for defendants’ refusal to modify his diet to
allow certain items, most notably butter. (Dkt. #250.) In a prior opinion and order, the
court rejected Tatum’s request to modify the court-order NOI diet by adding (1) filtered
and distilled water; (2) cereal; and (3) butter. (6/7/19 Op. & Order (dkt. #234) 5-7.) The
court explained that defendants are required to provide Tatum with the NOI-compliant
diet set forth in the court’s permanent injunction, and “are not required to provide
additional items which Tatum now contends are part of his religious diet.” (Id. at 5.) Still,
the court rejected defendants’ response to his administrative requests that they were barred
from modifying his diet by the court’s injunction, explaining that “if Tatum requests a
modification that adds items to the court-ordered diet, defendants are free to consider his
request, and to grant or deny it accordingly.” (Id. at 6.)
With this guidance, Tatum requested a modification to add the three items listed
above, but it was denied. Specifically, Kelli Willard-West, the DOC’s religious practices
coordinator, explained to Tatum in a two-page letter why the Religious Practices Advisory
Committee was denying his request, providing several salient reasons including that (1) he
does not support his request based on any religious beliefs, (2) his requests have presented
a “moving target,” as this court found, limiting any benefit to continued negotiations with
Tatum, (3) any voluntary changes would expose the DOC up to risk of noncompliance
with the injunction and (4) the DOC, DOJ and this court has already invested considerable
analysis to confirm that the court-ordered NOI diet meets Tatum’s dietary needs. (Pl.’s
Mot., Ex. 1 (dkt. #250-1).) The court finds Willard-West’s reasons for denying these
requests reasonable and finds no basis to compel the modifications or otherwise sanction
3

defendants. In sum, plaintiff received exactly the relief the court expected in its prior
opinion and order.
One final note. Tatum has grossly abused this court’s obligation to enforce its
injunctions by bringing petty motions for contempt. As the court has previously warned
Tatum, if he believes individual officers are retaliating against him because of the NOI diet,
he should file separate lawsuits. If he continues to bring these frivolous motions for
contempt, the court will contemplate vacating the injunction as a sanction.

Finally,

defendants are relieved of any obligation to respond to any filings unless specifically
requested by the court.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for a finding of contempt and sanctions
(dkt. ##240, 250, 251, 252) are DENIED.
Entered this 21st day of June, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4