Gulley, Dominique v. Haines, Timothy et al

Filing 6

ORDER that plaintiff Dominique Treymaine Gulley's request for leave to proceed is DENIED AT THIS TIME. Plaintiff may have until January 13, 2014, to submit evidence demonstrating that he exhausted his administrative remedies, and state whether his transfer to Winnebago occurred during and/or as a result of the administrative process. If plaintiff fails to respond by that date, then the clerk of court is directed to close this case for petitioner's failure to prosecute. If plaintiff submits a revised complaint by that date, the court will take that complaint under advisement for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/23/2013. (jef),(ps)

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

DOMINIQUE TREYMAINE GULLEY,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
13-cv-678-wmc
TIMOTHY HAINES, JEROME SWEENEY,
and DAVID GARDNER,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Dominique Treymaine Gulley alleges that the Warden, Security Director
and Administrative Captain at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility all acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious mental health needs in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Gulley asks for leave to proceed under the in forma pauperis statute,
28 U.S.C. § 1915. From his financial affidavit, the court concluded that Gulley is unable
to prepay the full fee for filing this lawsuit and he has made the initial partial payment of
$0.20 required of him under § 1915(b)(1).

Typically, the court would now screen

Gulley’s complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and dismiss
any portion that is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or (3) seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Before screening, however, the court will require Gulley to
demonstrate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, particularly in light of
Gulley having filed the same claim without fully exhausting once before.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations
of the complaint generously.1

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

Gulley

alleges, and the court assumes for purposes of this screening order, the following facts:


Plaintiff Dominique Gulley Treymaine Gulley (a/k/a Dominique T. Gulley,
Dominique Kelondre Gulley, and Ahmad Razeák) was an inmate at Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility (“WSPF”) in Boscobel, Wisconsin, when he filed this
complaint. From the court’s review of Department of Correction’s offender search
website, Gulley now appears to be incarcerated at the Supervised Living Facility in
Winnebago, Wisconsin.



Defendants Timothy Haines is the Warden of WSPF; Jerome Sweeney is its
Security Director; and David Gardner is its Administrative Captain.



Gulley alleges that he has been diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, ODD, bipolar
disorder, conduct disorder, PTDS, anxiety, multiple personality disorder,
schizophrenia disorder, borderline personality disorder, explosive disorder and
paranoid schizophrenia disorder. (Compl. (dkt. #1) p.3.)



During his incarceration at WSPF, Gulley further alleges that defendants were not
doing “anything to help me,” including transferring him to another institution,
such as one that specializes in mental health treatment.



Gulley also complains that supermax incarceration exacerbates mental health
issues by (1) restricting time outside of a cell to one hour and fifteen minutes per
week; (2) having no interactions with other individuals, including guards; (3)
illuminating his cell for twenty-four hours per day; (4) providing no outdoor
exercise; (5) restricting personal belonging; (6) being exposed to wild temperature
fluctuations; and (7) having visits only via video screens. (Id. at p.5.)



Given his mental health issues, Gulley claims that he has a “difficult time handling
these conditions of extreme social isolation and sensory deprivation, my mental
health problems and behavior problems are worsening,” and he runs “a high risk of
breaking down and attempting suicide.” (Id.)

1

Gonzalez attached various materials to the complaint, including a cover letter to the
court dated September 15, 2013 (dkt. #1-5 at pp.1-2). The court has considered these
other materials in setting forth Gonzalez’s allegations.
2



Gulley seeks an order requiring him to be transferred to a facility like the Kenosha
Correctional Center / Mental Health Institution or Winnebago Mental Health
Institution, and $10,895 in damages for psychological distress.
OPINION
As indicated above, Gulley previously filed a similar lawsuit in this court

concerning the treatment of his mental health issues at WSPF. In Gulley v. Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility, No. 12-cv-207 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 23, 2012), the court denied him
leave to proceed with that lawsuit, in part, because Gulley acknowledged in his complaint
a failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. §
1997(e).2 In this complaint, Gulley is silent as to his use of the grievance process. While
exhaustion typically is not addressed at the screening step, given Gulley’s failure to
exhaust the exact claim previously, the court will require him to submit evidence showing
that he exhausted his proposed Eighth Amendment claim before granting him leave to
proceed.
In light of Gulley’s apparent transfer to Winnebago -- a move which appears to
moot any prospective relief -- Gulley will also be required to state whether his transfer
occurred during and/or as a result of his administrative grievance (assuming he filed one).
Before proceeding with a claim for past monetary damages, Gulley will also need to state

2

Gulley also filed, and was granted leave to proceed with a separate complaint against a
WSPF doctor on the basis that she violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being
deliberately indifference to his serious mental health needs. Gulley v. Becker, No. 11-cv704-wmc (W.D. Wis. Oct. 31, 2011). Gulley subsequently requested that his claim be
dismissed without prejudice, which the court granted.
3

how each of the named defendants were directly involved in the decision to place Gulley
in and/or deny his transfer from WSPF despite his alleged mental health issues.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Dominique Treymaine Gulley’s request for leave to proceed is
DENIED AT THIS TIME; and
2) Plaintiff may have until January 13, 2014, to submit evidence demonstrating
that he exhausted his administrative remedies, and state whether his transfer
to Winnebago occurred during and/or as a result of the administrative process.
If plaintiff fails to respond by that date, then the clerk of court is directed to
close this case for petitioner's failure to prosecute.
If plaintiff submits a
revised complaint by that date, the court will take that complaint under
advisement for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Entered this 23rd day of December, 2013.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4