Amonoo, Kwesi v. Sparling, Karen et al

Filing 65

ORDER that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff Kwesi B. Amonoo's falsification of evidence. Plaintiff is assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 7/14/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KWESI B. AMONOO,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
15-cv-603-slc
KAREN SPARLING, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Kwesi B. Amonoo is proceeding in this § 1983 civil suit on claims that
three correctional officers at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution (NLCI) violated his rights
under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by confiscating and destroying his prayer oil on two
separate occasions. On June 21, 2017, I gave plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental
response to the motion for sanctions that defendants filed in the context of briefing summary
judgment. In particular, defendants argued this entire case should be dismissed with prejudice
because plaintiff fabricated evidence in opposing summary judgment. After reviewing the
documents in question, I agreed with defendants that two of plaintiff’s documents appear to be
obvious fabrications and that dismissal with prejudice would be an appropriate sanction for
plaintiff’s actions. Before dismissing the case, however, I gave plaintiff one more opportunity
to prove that the documents are not falsified by submitting the original documents in question.
I am now in receipt of plaintiff’s response, in which he addresses both documents in
question but fails to submit original copies of either document. (Dkt. 63, 64.) The first
document at issue is a property inventory that plaintiff received at the time he was transferred
to NLCI. In his supplemental response, plaintiff does not clearly explain why he did not submit
an original copy of the inventory to the court, but his response suggests that he may have never
actually possessed an original copy of this document. Instead, his response suggests that he

received a photocopy of the document when he was transferred to NLCI. He further states that
he cannot explain why his inventory shows that he arrived at NLCI with two 8 ounce bottles of
hair oil, while defendants’ document does not, but he points to additional discrepancies between
his document and the defendants,’ suggesting that the discrepancies are not necessarily
nefarious. However, the differences noted by plaintiff appear to be additions and subtractions
added by the institution as plaintiff received new property or destroyed old property. These
differences do not explain why plaintiff’s property inventory document shows that he arrived
at NLCI with two 8 ounce bottles of hair oil, while the institutions inventory shows he arrived
with no hair oil.
Perhaps if the property inventory were the only document at issue, I would be disinclined
to sanction plaintiff based solely on its submission given the outstanding questions regarding the
differences between the two documents. However, the second document at issue – the alleged
2013 property receipt – is such an obvious fabrication that a sanction is appropriate.
With respect to the alleged 2013 property receipt, plaintiff states that before submitting
the original document as ordered by the court, he decided to make one final copy of it. He
states, however, that while he was attempting to make a copy of it, it “c[a]me up missing due
to staff’s negligence.” Dkt. 63. He attaches a “photocopy request” form dated June 27, 2017,
which he allegedly filled out requesting a copy of 2013 property receipt. Dkt. 64-1. On the
form, there is a statement from someone named “VanBeek,” who wrote, “receipt did not return
with copies.” Plaintiff alleges that this is a statement by staff proving that staff lost the original
2013 property receipt.
But plaintiff’s explanation is not at all persuasive. The photocopy form does not prove

2

that it was the alleged 2013 property receipt that plaintiff sought to copy, as the form does not
identify any specific property receipt. Further, the ambiguous statement from “VanBeek” does
not clarify whether plaintiff actually provided a property receipt to be copied, which property
receipt he provided, or what happened to the property receipt. Rather than help plaintiff, this
submission provides further evidence that plaintiff is attempting to cover up his fabrication of
the 2013 property receipt.
As I explained before, a side-by-side comparison of the fabricated 2013 property receipt
with the original 2009 property receipt that plaintiff altered confirms that plaintiff fabricated
the 2013 receipt. Because plaintiff has neither provided the original nor any other plausible
explanation for the similarities between the two documents, I conclude that the evidence
establishes that he has submitted a fraudulent document to the court:

3

Original 2009 Property Receipt:

Plaintiff’s Fabricated Property Receipt:

4

In sum, I conclude that the clear and convincing evidence establishes that plaintiff
submitted at least one fabricated document, and probably two, with his summary judgment
opposition materials. Additionally, as I explained in my previous order, I conclude that dismissal
of this case is the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances. A lesser sanction would
not be adequate or effective at deterring plaintiff from falsifying evidence in the future.
Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff falsifying evidence.
Additionally, because his falsified evidence confirms that this case was frivolous, plaintiff will be
be assessed a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff
Kwesi B. Amonoo’s falsification of evidence. Plaintiff is assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).

Entered this 14th of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

5