Ards, Tyrone v. Saylor, Cody et al
ORDER the defendant Saylor must respond to plaintiff's 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 8/14/2017. Service to be made pursuant to the informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/8/2017. (elc),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TYRONE D. ARDS,
CODY SAYLOR, MATHEW SCULLION,
REBECCA ENGLEBURGER, TRENT LANDT,
SONYA ANDERSON, NATHEL BETHEL,
REBECCA FELDMAN, RN LEE,
RN EGDE, BECKY KRAMER,
JOSEPH CICHANOWICZ, SGT. WALLACE,
JOLINDA WATERMAN, SANDRA MCARDLE,
RN WOOD, J. LABELLE, JASON GODFREY,
GABRIEL JOHNSTON, and MAC MINK,
Pro se plaintiff Tyrone Ards is a Wisconsin prisoner incarcerated at the Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility (WSPF). Ards has a history of suicide attempts, and his proposed
complaint alleges that the 19 defendants, all officials at WSPF, are deliberately indifferent to
his ongoing risk of suicide. Dkt. 1. I will fully screen his proposed complaint in due course.
The immediate issue is Ards’s request for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 7. The request
is not in the proper form, but the gist of it is clear enough. Ards contends that he has overdosed
on Tylenol pills and that he will attempt to do so again. This allegation is similar to one Ards
made in Case No. 16-cv-341. In that case, I was informed through a declaration from Maria
Lemieux that Ards is subject to a “Keep On Person” drug restriction, which means that his
medications are administered a dose at a time so that he does not have access to a large quantity
of pills. Ards v. Anderson, No. 16-cv-341, Dkt. 28, ¶ 11 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2016). I can gleen
from Ards’s filings in this case that, despite the KOP restriction, he is hoarding pills, and that
he believes that WSPF staff should watch him ingest his medication to prevent future suicide
I anticipate that I will allow Ards to proceed on at least one claim in this case. Ards
alleges in his complaint that he showed defendant Cody Saylor pills he had stored, but Saylor
did nothing while Ards swallowed 70 acetaminophen pills. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 19-21. I will assume at
this point that Ards states a claim against Saylor, and I will direct service of Ards’s complaint
as to Saylor alone. I will stay the answer deadline until the complaint is fully screened.
But I will direct Saylor to respond promptly to Ards’s request for a preliminary
injunction. Saylor’s response need not include formal proposed findings of fact, but it should
include an affidavit or declaration explaining how WSPF is managing Ards’s medication,
particularly whether WSPF is taking any steps to prevent Ards from hoarding. I am, in essence,
asking WSPF to update the Lemieux declaration to show that Ards is not in imminent danger.
After I receive Saylor’s response, I will decide whether a telephonic hearing is necessary.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Cody Saylor must respond to plaintiff Tyrone Ards’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, Dkt. 7, by August 14, 2017.
2. Pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of
Justice and this court, copies of plaintiff’s complaint, motion for preliminary
injunction, and this order are being sent today to the Attorney General for service
on defendant Saylor. Plaintiff should not attempt to serve any defendant on his own
at this time.
Entered August 8, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?