Leiser, Jeffrey v. Richardson, Reed et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying plaintiff Jeffrey Leiser's motions seek injunctive relief (dkts. 19 , 23 , 27 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 10/5/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JEFFREY D. LEISER
Plaintiff,

OPINION and ORDER

v.

Case No. 16-cv-860-slc

REED RICHARDSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Leiser is proceeding in this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a
First Amendment free speech claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim against employees
of Stanley Correctional Institution (Stanley). Specifically, Leiser challenges a 2016 conduct
report and his transfer from Stanley to New Lisbon Correctional Institution (New Lisbon), both
of which occurred after Leiser allegedly received money in exchange for providing legal services
to other prisoners. Leiser has filed a motion for a cease and desist order (dkt. 19), and two
motions that seek an injunction directing defendants to stop retaliating against him (dkts. 23,
27). Since the record before the court does not suggest that Leiser is entitled any of the relief
he requests, I am denying the motions.

OPINION
To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show: (1) likelihood
of success on the merits of his case; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an
irreparable harm that will result if the injunction is not granted. Lambert v. Buss, 498 F.3d 446,
451 (7th Cir. 2007). Upon making this showing, plaintiff then must demonstrate that the
balance of harms tips in his favor and that the public interest favors the injunctive relief. Id. As
formidable as these factors are for a typical party to prove, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA), which governs this lawsuit, narrows the available relief to an even greater extent in cases
involving prison conditions.
The PLRA requires that any injunctive relief to remedy prison conditions must be
“narrowly drawn extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds
requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.”
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2012). It also
requires this court to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the
operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” § 3626.
In his motion to cease and desist, Leiser explains that he received his Program Review
Committee (PRC) paperwork in May of 2018 related to his placement, and he believes it
includes a false statement related to the conduct report that is the subject of this lawsuit.
Specifically, Leiser claims that his social worker at New Lisbon, A. Hinchley, commented that
Leiser “later admitted to receiving money for legal services.” (Dkt. 20-1, at 2.) Leiser denies ever
stating as much, and he believes that New Lisbon staff and the defendants in this lawsuit
included this false statement to damage his claims in this lawsuit. He seeks an order from this
court directing the Wisconsin Department of Justice to investigate who made this false
statement, as well as an order striking the statement from the record of this case.
Leiser’s two other motions stem from what he believes to be retaliation for his motion
to cease and desist and for his practice as a jailhouse lawyer. Leiser explains that on August 20,
2018, he learned that he was being transferred from New Lisbon to Redgranite Correctional
Institution. However, Leiser states that on August 23, 2018, he was called to Hinchley’s office,
and she informed him that he would no longer be transferred. Leiser claims that these transfer

2

decisions were made because he filed the motion to cease and desist. Most recently, however,
Leiser reports he actually was transferred to Redgranite on August 30, 2018, but that staff there
will not allow him to help other prisoners with legal matters. Accordingly, Leiser seeks an
injunction directing all DOC staff to stop trying to interfere with his right to file grievances and
lawsuits.
None of these claims warrant injunctive relief. As an initial matter, Leiser is proceeding
in this lawsuit against only Stanley employees in their individual capacities; Hinchley is not a
defendant, nor are any New Lisbon or Redgranite employees. Accordingly, this court lacks
jurisdiction to order anyone at New Lisbon, Redgranite, the Department of Justice, or the DOC
more generally, to take or to stop any action. Even assuming that Hinchley’s allegedly false
comment in his PRC relates to Leiser’s claims in this lawsuit, there is no evidence to support
Leiser’s theory that the defendants (who all work at Stanley and appear completely divorced
from the review of Leiser’s placement) are committing fraud to derail his claims in this lawsuit.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Leiser has shown a likelihood of success
on the merits, he has fallen far short of establishing the remaining two prima facie elements
necessary to obtain injunctive relief. First, Leiser has adequate remedies at Redgranite to address
his concerns: he acknowledges that he can use the inmate complaint review system (1) to voice
his concern about allegedly false statements in his PRC, (2) to complain about how New Lisbon
staff handled his transfer and (3) to challenge how Redgranite staff is handling Leiser’s foray into
jailhouse lawyering. If these grievances do not allay Leiser’s concerns, then–after taking all of
the steps necessary to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him–Leiser may file a
separate lawsuit raising these issues. While Leiser may not wish to pay a separate filing fee and

3

have such claims subjected to the screening requirement of the PLRA, Leiser’s filings do not
begin to suggest that he has been unable to take these steps to address his concerns. To the
contrary, Leiser’s most recent filing indicates that he has been filing grievances about his
concerns, and so it appears that he is well on his way to filing another federal lawsuit.
Next, Leiser will not suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. As to his motion to
cease and desist, while Leiser may believe that the comment Hinchley included in the report is
false, it is unclear how this subsequent statement bears on his claim in this lawsuit. In any event,
defendants respond that they do not intend to use that statement as evidence in this lawsuit.
Therefore, Leiser has not adequately shown irreparable harm.
Leiser’s complaints about his transfer and Redgranite staff are non-starters. For one,
Leiser’s complaint about his transfer presents a moving target: first he complains that he was
scheduled for a transfer to Redgranite (which defendants say that Leiser requested), and then
he complains that the transfer was cancelled, but now that he’s at Redgranite he is frustrated
with the staff there. Setting aside what Leiser actually wants, the fact remains that he has no
right to the prison of his choosing. See Miller v. Turner, 26 F. App’x 560, 562-63 (7th Cir. 2001)
(citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) for the proposition that an inmate does not
have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining at, or being transferred from, a
particular institution). Likewise, while Leiser complains that Redgranite staff are impeding his
right to help other prisoners with legal matters, he has no constitutional right to act as a
jailhouse lawyer. See Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 232-33 (2001). In sum, I see no basis to
conclude that Leiser will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.

4

Even assuming that Leiser had met the prima facie elements for his requests for relief, the
actual relief he seeks is too vague and overbroad to comply with the PLRA’s requirements. Leiser
wants this court to order the DOJ to launch an investigation into the veracity of the statements
in his PRC, to strike any mention of the statement that Leiser admitted that he accepted money
for legal services, and to issue an order telling DOC staff not to retaliate against him. These
requests go far beyond Leiser’s claims in this lawsuit. Leiser’s claims here don’t even involve
ongoing conduct: they relate to his 2016 conduct report and transfer from Stanley to New
Lisbon. For that reason as well, I am denying Leiser’s motions.
Leiser would be well- advised to refocus his attention on proving the merits of his claims
in this lawsuit. Toward this end, any subsequent requests for injunctive relief will, in the first
instance, be subjected to summary review and decision.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jeffrey Leiser’s motions seek injunctive relief (dkts. 19,
23, 27) are DENIED.

Entered this 5th day of October, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

5