Ward, Robert et al v. Walker, Scott et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 2 , 8 Motions for Emergency Injunctive Relief. The Wisconsin Attorney General's Office is DIRECTED to promptly advise Department of Corrections officials that plaintiff believes he is at imminent risk of self-harm or suicide so that these officials can take whatever action they deem appropriate to insure plaintiff's safety. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/21/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROBERT J. WARD,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
18-cv-374-bbc
v.
SCOTT WALKER, JON LITSCHER, JAMES GREER,
DAVID BURNETT, KEVIN KALLAS, DAI ADMINISTRATOR,
G. BOUGHTON, KARTMEN, L. BROWN, MR. RUBEN-ASH,
MS. WATERMEN, UNNAMED JOHN AND JANE DOES,
CCI WARDEN DITMEN, CCI SECURITY DIRECTOR,
CCI PSU DIRECTOR, CCI PSU STAFF, PSYCHIATRIST N.P. KIRSH
and WSPF PSU STAFF,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Robert Ward has filed a proposed civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, in which he contends that the policies and practices of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections fail to provide adequate mental health treatment for seriously mentally ill
inmates and instead, result in exacerbation of mental illnesses, suicidal ideation and selfharm impulses. He has named as defendants several state officials who he contends are
responsible for the flawed policies and practices. Because plaintiff is incarcerated, his
complaint must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, plaintiff has not yet made
an initial partial payment of the filing fee as calculated by the clerk of court, and his
complaint will not be screened until he has done so. Dkt. #10. That being said, plaintiff
has filed two motions requesting emergency injunctive relief. Dkt. ##2, 8. In light of
plaintiff’s serious allegations, I will address those motions without further delay.

1

In his first motion for injunctive relief, dkt. #2, plaintiff seeks a court order requiring
that he be transferred to a mental health facility so that he may receive adequate mental
health care before his anticipated release from custody on November 20, 2018. He also asks
that prison officials be prohibited from placing him in solitary confinement for more than
15 days at a time for the duration of this lawsuit. He filed a declaration in support of his
motion, stating that the conditions in administrative confinement are unseasonably harsh
and exacerbate his mental health problems. He says that without this relief, he will likely
end up killing himself.
Although I am sympathetic to plaintiff’s arguments, I will deny this motion without
prejudice at this time. First, plaintiff’s motion does not comply with this court’s procedures
for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, a copy of which will be provided to plaintiff with
this order. Under these procedures, a plaintiff must file and serve proposed findings of fact
that support his claims, along with any evidence that supports those proposed findings.
Plaintiff has neither submitted proposed findings of fact nor cited any evidence to support
those findings.
Second, even if plaintiff’s motion were not flawed on its face, I would have to deny
it on the merits at this time. Preliminary injunctive relief such as that requested by plaintiff
is rarely granted. To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show:
(1) a 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). In this instance, plaintiff contends that defendants are

2

violating his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him adequate treatment for his
mental health needs. However, although plaintiff alleges his conditions of confinement have
worsened his mental health, his declaration alone does not establish a likelihood of success
on the merits of his claim. As plaintiff is no doubt aware, policies and decisions regarding
mental health care and security for inmates involve complicated issues. The appropriate care
and placement will necessarily depend on the particular needs of the individual prisoner.
However, plaintiff is not a mental health expert and is not “entitled to dictate the terms of
his care,” Harper v. Santos, 847 F.3d 923, 927 (7th Cir. 2017), including choosing the
facility or unit in which he should be confined. Although he may disagree with the mental
health care he has been receiving, a “mere disagreement” is not enough to support a claim
under the Constitution. Id. at 926-27. As this case progresses, plaintiff may be able to
submit evidence showing that defendants’ policies and practices have denied him necessary
care or have subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement but at this stage,
he has not submitted such evidence. Therefore, his request for preliminary injunctive relief
will be denied. However, in light of plaintiff’s allegations that he is at imminent risk of selfharm, I will direct the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office to promptly alert Department
of Corrections officials so that they can take whatever action they deem appropriate to
insure plaintiff’s safety.
In plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief, dkt. #8, plaintiff says he received
a punishment of 30 days’ room confinement that has prevented him from going to the law
library. He seeks an order requiring the prison to allow him to use the law library. This

3

motion will be denied because plaintiff has not explained why he needs to go to the library
in the next 30 days in relation to this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s only pending deadline is the
deadline for paying his filing fee, and I can think of no reason why plaintiff needs to go to
the law library to do that. In short, plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable
harm without an injunction.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff Robert Jay Ward’s motions for emergency injunctive relief, dkt. ##2,
8, are DENIED.
2. The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office is DIRECTED to promptly advise
Department of Corrections officials that plaintiff believes he is at imminent risk of self-harm
or suicide so that these officials can take whatever action they deem appropriate to insure
plaintiff’s safety.
Entered this 21st day of June, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4