Walker v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2013cv00003 - Document 44 (E.D. Wis. 2014)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 8/29/14 denying as moot 42 Motion for Leave to File; denying 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN TONY D. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-C-0003 EDWARD WALL, DEIRDRE MORGAN, CATHY JESS, CHARLES FACKTOR, AMY BASTEN, MICHAEL BAENEN, JESSICA LEGOIS, and MICHAEL MOHR, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Tony D. W alker, a W isconsin state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants denied him access to the courts when they refused his request for a legal loan. W alker alleges that the denial of the legal loan resulted in the dismissal of a certiorari action he had filed in state court. The certiorari action challenged the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding, in which W alker was sentenced to sixteen days of cell confinement. W alker alleged that the result of the disciplinary proceeding had to be set aside because, among other reasons, W alker was not given proper notice of the hearing. To prevail on a claim alleging denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must show that the denial of access resulted in interference with a legal claim. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 553 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 (1996)). To show this, a plaintiff does not have to prove that, had it not been for the defendant s interference, he would have won his case. W alters v. Edgar, 163 F.3d 430, 434 (7th Cir. 1998). Rather, all that the plaintiff must show is that the claim was not frivolous. Id.; accord Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429, 433 34 (7th Cir. 2012); Bridges, 557 F.3d at 553; Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 559 60 (7th Cir. 1995). The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on W alker s denial-ofaccess claim. The defendants do not dispute that the denial of the legal loan resulted in the dismissal of W alker s certiorari petition. Instead, they contend that the claim fails because W alker cannot demonstrate that the certiorari petition raised nonfrivolous claims. However, the defendants do not argue that the claims alleged in the state certiorari petition were frivolous. Instead, they argue that the state court would have dismissed the petition on procedural grounds because W alker had failed to exhaust his prison remedies before filing the petition. Under W isconsin law, to exhaust prison remedies an inmate must use the Inmate Complaint Review System ( ICRS ), the procedures for which are stated in W isconsin Administrative Code Chapter DOC 310. W alker did file a complaint pursuant to the ICRS before filing his certiorari petition, and he did attempt to raise in his complaint the issues he would eventually include in his certiorari petition. However, the complaint was summarily rejected on the ground that W alker did not allege sufficient facts upon which redress may be made. See W is. Admin. Code § DOC 310.11(5)(c). W alker appealed the rejection of his complaint in accordance with the rules of the ICRS, but the rejection was affirmed. The defendants contend that because W alker s inmate complaint was dismissed for failure to allege sufficient facts upon which redress may be made, the circuit court would have dismissed his certiorari action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, it is by no means certain that the circuit court would have dismissed the certiorari petition for this reason. W alker technically exhausted his prison remedies by filing a complaint and 2 appealing the denial of that complaint as far as the ICRS allows. Arguably, W alker did not properly exhaust his prison remedies because, according to the complaint examiner and appeal officer, he failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claim. But it is only arguable that W alker did not properly exhaust his prison remedies for this reason. The ICRS does not contain any guidance to prisoners as to how much detail must be included in a complaint. It informs prisoners only that they must clearly identify the issue. W is. Admin. Code § DOC 310.09(1)(e). W alker seems to have complied with this rule. His complaint stated in relevant part as follows: I was never informed of the hearing s time, date, or place. They simply opened my door on Saturday and told me to get dressed and go out to the rotunda. I was never given notice of a hearing. Mohr Aff. ¶ 8, Ex. 1002 at 1. It is true that W alker did not provide any factual background to this issue, such as the date of the hearing or the number of the conduct report that gave rise to the hearing. But what rule of the ICRS requires a prisoner to include that information in the complaint? There is nothing in the ICRS analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a civil plaintiff to include in his or her complaint a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The ICRS requires the inmate to clearly state the issue, and here the issue was that W alker did not get notice of a hearing. Thus, it is at least arguable that W alker properly exhausted his prison remedies, and therefore the defendants have not shown that W alker s certiorari complaint was frivolous. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants motion for summary judgment (Docket # 27) is DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff s motion for leave to file supplemental response (Docket # 42) is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated at Milwaukee, W isconsin, this 29th day of August, 2014. s/ Lynn Adelman _______________________ LYNN ADELMAN District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
