St. Junious, AnQuin v. Security Staff at Chippewa Valley Corr. Facililty et al

Filing 9

ORDER that plaintiff AnQuin St. Junious may have until April 4, 2016 to amend his complaint to substitute Sergeant Hartman as the only defendant in this action. The currently named defendants, security staff at CVCTF and the WDOC, both are DISMISSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/17/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANQUIN ST. JUNIOUS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Case No. 15-cv-344-slc
SECURITY STAFF AT
CHIPPEWA VALLEY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY and WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff AnQuin St. Junious has filed a proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, in which he contends that defendant security staff at Chippewa Valley Correctional
Treatment Facility ("CVCTF") and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("WDOC") failed
to protect him from threats by other inmates while he was in state custody, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The parties consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction, and on February 8, 2016, this case was reassigned to me.

(Dkt. 8.) Having

determined that St. Junious may proceed under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
and that he has made his partial payment, his complaint is ready for screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. For the following reasons, St. Junious will be permitted to amend his complaint to
name Sergeant Hartman, the only available proper defendant.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

In his complaint, St. Junious alleges the following facts, which the court must assume to
be true for the purposes of this screening order:

Plaintiff AnQuin St. Junious is a prisoner in the custody of the State of Wisconsin
Department of Corrections, and he is currently confined at Jackson Correctional Institution
("JCI").

Previously, St. Junious was incarcerated at CVCTF. While there, he began working with
a "Sergeant Hartman" to investigate a suspected drug distribution scheme at CVCTF. St. Junious
spoke to another inmate, who told him how the drugs were entering CVCTF. St. Junious learned
from this inmate that inmates Caskey and Hawkins were involved in the drug scheme. St.
Junious reported all of this to Sergeant Hartman. Sergeant Hartman asked him to write a
"Confidential Statement," which would allow Sergeant Hartman to get the warden to act more
quickly. St. Junious complied with that request, believing that his name would not be associated
with the report or with any investigation of Caskey and Hawkins. Caskey and Hawkins received
conduct reports for their involvement in the drug distribution scheme, and those conduct reports
included St. Junious's confidential statement without redacting his name. Shortly after the
conduct reports were issued, St. Junious, Caskey, and Hawkins were all place in segregation. St.
Junious did not know why he was placed in segregation.

St. Junious was then transferred to Stanley Correctional Institution ("SCI"), where he
learned for the first time that his confidential statement had been included in Caskey's and
Hawkins's conduct reports. According to St. Junious, Caskey and Hawkins are associated with
the "Latin Kings and 'Native American' tribes." While St. Junious was outside of Unit 4 at SCI,
two Latin Kings surrounded him at a picnic table. The two Latin Kings made him read his

2

statement and told St. Junious to "get the f--- out of Stanley Correctional Institution before they
break [his] neck or stab [him]."

St. Junious asked to be placed in safe custody. A lieutenant complied with his request and
placed him in segregation for his own safety. St. Junious believes that Caskey and Hawkins made
copies of their conduct reports, which they mailed to other correctional institutions and posted
on Facebook pages.

He explains that he was "devastated, scared, mentally unstable, and

humiliated" by his confidential statement appearing in their conduct reports.

The SCI Warden then transferred St. Junious to JCI because of safety concerns. After his
arrival, his confidential statement was seen by inmates at JCI. St. Junious then filed two
complaints. One against the security staff at CVCTF, which was rejected because it was not filed
in a timely manner. The other complaint was against JCI Staff, claiming that his confidential
statement had been mailed to JCI and he did not feel safe. Because of his complaint, JCI placed
a mail check on all incoming mail to search for copies of the conduct reports or St. Junious's
confidential statement. No further steps were taken because St. Junious reported that he was
"okay" residing at JCI.

OPINION

Plaintiff alleges that the staff at CVCTF and the WDOC failed to prevent the risk of harm
to him by other inmates by releasing his confidential statement. The initial–but not fatal–
problem with plaintiff's complaint is that it fails to identify a proper defendant. Claims under
§ 1983 must be alleged against "persons." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). See Parker v. Liser, Case No.

3

11-cv-527-slc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102390, 2011 WL 4014453, at *5 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 9,
2011) ("It is important that plaintiff identify in his amended complaint particular individuals he
believes are violating his constitutional rights. He cannot sue "the health department" or "state
employees" generally.). Plaintiff brings claims against the "Security Staff at Chippewa Valley
Correctional Treatment Facility" and the "Wisconsin Department of Corrections." The first is a
description of a group of employees, the second is department of the state government. Neither
one is an actual “person” for purposes of § 1983. Therefore, the court will dismiss them from this
action. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

Because the complaint does state an Eighth Amendment claim against one potential
defendant -- namely, Sergeant Hartman -- the court will permit plaintiff to amend his complaint
to name him as a defendant. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551 (7th Cir. 2005). The
Eighth Amendment requires that "those charged with the high responsibility of running prisons
… 'protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.'" Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d
749, 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)). Generally
speaking, the "failure to prevent exposure to risk of harm" does not give rise to a constitutional
violation without the materialization of the physical threat or harm. Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d
270, 272 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added) ("However legitimate Babcock's fears may have been,
we nevertheless believe that it is the reasonably preventable assault itself, rather than any fear of
assault, that gives rise to a compensable claim under the Eighth Amendment…."). Actual physical
injury is not a filing prerequisite, however. A prisoner may seek injunctive relief and nominal or
punitive damages where "[p]rison officials recklessly expose a prisoner to a substantial risk of a
serious physical injury." Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Turner v.

4

Pollard, 564 Fed. Appx. 234, 238-39 (7th Cir. 2014) ("where . . . the record supports an inference
that a prison official is deliberately exposing an inmate to a dangerous risk, the inmate may seek
an injunction against exposure to the risk").

Although plaintiff does not allege any physical injury or seek an injunction, at the
screening stage, it is reasonable to infer that Sergeant Hartman intentionally created the risk of
harm by including plaintiff's name in the conduct report. Based on this screening order inference,
that Sergeant Hartman acted intentionally, plaintiff is not foreclosed from seeking nominal and
punitive damages from him. Accordingly, the court will permit plaintiff to amend his complaint
to name Sergeant Hartman as a defendant.

Plaintiff has not pled facts suggesting that anyone else disregarded the risk that he might
be harmed by other inmates. On the contrary, these facts indicate that the prison staff responded
promptly to the threats. After the conduct reports were released, plaintiff was placed into
segregation, which removed him from the threat of retribution by someone in the general
population. Then, plaintiff was transferred to another correctional institution, away from Caskey
and Hawkins. After plaintiff was threatened there, a lieutenant complied with his request to be
placed into segregation for his safety, and then he was transferred to JCI, where the staff
responded to his concerns by imposing a mail check to prevent his statement from being mailed
to another inmate. Plaintiff admits that at that point he was okay being housed in JCI's general
population and did not request any further actions. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to allege that
any prison staff besides Sergeant Hartman acted in conscious disregard to the risk of harm, and
he will not be permitted to proceed against any other prison staff.

5

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff AnQuin St. Junious may have until April 4, 2016 to amend his
complaint to substitute Sergeant Hartman as the only defendant in this action.

2.

The currently named defendants, security staff at CVCTF and the WDOC,
both are DISMISSED.

3.

If St. Junious does not file an amended complaint as directed, this case will be
closed without further notice. Any amended complaint will be screened in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If the amended complaint fails to comply
with this order, the court will dismiss the complaint and this action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Entered this 17th day of March, 2016
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

6