Singh, Aman v. Marks, K. et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting plaintiff's 20 motion for reconsideration of the court's screening order. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed on an access to the courts claim against defendant Seitz. Defendants may have until March 28, 2016, to supp lement their motion to dismiss, Dkt. 36 , to address the access to the courts claim. Should defendants file such a supplement, plaintiff may have until April 11, 2016, to submit his supplemental response, and defendants may have until April 18, 2016, to submit a reply. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 3/14/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

AMAN SINGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
K. MARKS, CATHY JESS, PAUL KEMPER,
MS. BELLIS, MS. SEITZ, EMILY NELSON,
KATHY NAGLE, PAULA DECKER,
THOMAS WEIGAND, TERESA WEIGAND,
JEREMY GLOUDEMANS, TAD LEBRECK,
JOHN BETT, TONY STREVELER, CAROL BRIONES,
KITTY ANDERSON, SALLY TESS,
SHIRLEY STORANDT, MARK HEISE,
DANIELLE LACOST and DENNIS BASKIN,

ORDER
14-cv-507-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Aman Singh, a resident of Greenfield, Wisconsin, brings claims that various
state officials unconstitutionally deprived him of opportunities to participate in programs
while he was incarcerated at the Racine Correctional Institution that could have earned him
early release, and that they rescinded “positive adjustment time” that he had earned.
I previously denied plaintiff leave to proceed on equal protection claims that
defendant Seitz denied plaintiff’s open records requests for statistics concerning the number
of prisoners granted early release before and after repeal of 2009 Wis. Act 28, which had
provided for various “early release opportunities.” Dkt. 6. Seitz denied the request pursuant
to Wisconsin open records law, under which unrepresented prisoners are largely blocked from
obtaining most records.
Now plaintiff asks for reconsideration of the screening of his complaint. Dkt. 20.
Plaintiff states that he wishes to bring him a claim against Seitz under an access to the courts

theory. Id. at 1-2. (citing In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“By
depriving relator of the information about the cost to obtain his trial and appellate
transcripts, the district clerk’s policy invoking [Texas Government Code] Section 552.028
deprived relator of the ability to prepare an application for a writ of habeas corpus that
included all possible grounds for relief and thereby denied him the right to access the
courts.”)). Plaintiff contends that he lost ex post facto claims in his state habeas case because
he was unable to bring evidence showing that the changes to state law prolonged his
confinement. See State ex rel. Singh v. Kemper, 2014 WI App 43, ¶ 25, 353 Wis. 2d 520, 846
N.W.2d 820 (“Singh alleges that there have been fewer PAT-based early releases since the
enactment of 2011 Wis. Act 38, but provides no proof in this regard or proof that any such
change in releases is the result of the sentencing court’s modified role.”). The evidence
plaintiff hoped to bring was withheld by defendant Seitz.
In applying the right of access to the courts in the prison context, the Supreme Court
has held that prison officials have an affirmative duty to provide prisoners “a reasonably
adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to
the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977). In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351
(1996), the Court explained that a prisoner cannot prove a violation of his right of access to
the courts unless he identifies a nonfrivolous claim that was lost or is being impeded.
Based on plaintiff’s allegations that he lost a potentially meritorious habeas claim
because he was blocked from obtaining information proving his ex post facto theory of relief,
I conclude that he has stated a plausible access to the courts claim. I will grant plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration of the screening order.

2

Defendants have submitted a motion to dismiss, which the parties have completed
briefing. I will give the parties a short time to supplement their briefing on this motion to
address plaintiff’s access to the courts claim.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Aman Singh’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s screening
order, Dkt. 20, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed on an
access to the courts claim against defendant Seitz.
2. Defendants may have until March 28, 2016, to supplement their motion to
dismiss, Dkt. 36, to address the access to the courts claim. Should defendants
file such a supplement, plaintiff may have until April 11, 2016, to submit his
supplemental response, and defendants may have until April 18, 2016, to
submit a reply.
Entered March 14, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3