Holm, Victor v. Casiana et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying plaintiff Victor E. Holm's 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/7/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VICTOR HOLM,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-794-bbc
v.
CAPTAIN CASIANA, LT. ANDERSON,
TRISHA ANDERSON, DR. STEGLIA and
PHILIP KERCH,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On March 19, 2018, I granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Captain
Casiana, Trisha Anderson, Lt. Anderson, Dr. Steglia and Philip Kerch on plaintiff Victor
Holm’s claim that defendants drew his blood in violation of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Dkt. #47. In particular, I concluded that defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim because it was not clearly established that the
Fourth Amendment prohibited defendants from taking a blood sample from plaintiff
under the circumstances as they existed at the time of the draw. Now before the court is
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, in which he argues that I erred in concluding that
defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. #49.
Plaintiff contends that it is clearly established that warrantless searches of the
human body, including the taking of blood, violate the Fourth Amendment. He further
argues that defendants had no reasonable suspicion that he was intoxicated and,

1

moreover, defendants failed to comply with Department of Corrections policies and
procedures for taking samples of bodily fluids.
As explained previously, whether defendants complied with department policy is
not determinative of the constitutional question. Similarly, case law addressing the
Fourth Amendment rights of free citizens, suspects or pretrial detainees is not controlling.
Instead, the relevant question is whether there is clearly established law addressing the
Fourth Amendment rights of a convicted prisoner to object to a blood draw. On that
question, the law is not clearly established. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has stated that the Fourth Amendment “protects, to some degree, prisoners’ bodily
integrity against unreasonable intrusions into their bodies.” King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d
889, 900 (7th Cir. 2015). However, neither the Supreme Court nor the court of appeals
has provided clear guidance for determining the situations in which the Fourth
Amendment applies to searches of prisoners. Here, defendants decided to require a blood
test based on an informant’s statement that plaintiff might be “high,” along with
plaintiff’s failure to wake up promptly when approached by officers and his acting tired
and unfocused when confronted by defendant Lt. Anderson. Plaintiff has cited no clearly
established law in support of his argument that defendants’ decision violated his Fourth
Amendment rights. Therefore, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on
grounds of qualified immunity.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Victor E. Holm’s motion for reconsideration, dkt.
#49, is DENIED.
Entered this 7th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_____________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3