denied
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CLARENCE C. WILKS BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-CV-11
EDWARD F. WALL, WILLIAM POLLARD, CAPATIN DONALD STRAHOTA, TONY MELI, BRIAN GREFF, CORY SABISH, LT. JESSIE SCHNEIDER, ANDREW MOUNGEY, CO TANK, and JOHN DOES, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NOW COME the defendants, Edward F. Wall, William Pollard, Donald Strahota, Anthony Meli, Brian Greff, Cory Sabish, Jessie Schneider, Andrew Moungey, and Nathan Tank, by their attorneys, J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, and Robert B. Bresette, Assistant Attorney General, and as and for their answer and affirmative defenses to the plaintiff’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as follows: I.
PLACE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT Answering paragraph I of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
I.
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: I.
Answering paragraph I of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
A.
Answering paragraph I A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
B.
Answering paragraph I B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 9 Document 13
II.
PARTIES II.
Answering paragraph II of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: A.
Answering paragraph II A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
Defendants ALLEGE that plaintiff’s legal name is Clarence Wilks. B.
Answering paragraph II B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
C.
Answering paragraph II C of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore DENY. D.
[There is no paragraph II D in the complaint served on the defendants. (Dkt. 1.).]
E.
Answering paragraph II E of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
F.
Answering paragraph II F of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that
William Pollard is the Warden of the Waupun Correctional Institution (“WCI”), located at 200 South Madison Street, Post Office Box 351, Waupun, Wisconsin 53963. Defendants DENY that Donald Strahota is the Assistant Warden at the WCI. Defendants ALLEGE that Donald Strahota is the Deputy Warden at the WCI. Defendants ADMIT that Anthony Meli is the Security Director at WCI. Defendants DENY that Brian Greff is the Unit Manager of the Health and Segregation Complex (“HSC”). Defendants ALLEGE that Brian Greff is a Corrections Program Supervisor at WCI.
Defendants ADMIT that Cory Sabish is a Supervising Officer 1
(“Lieutenant”) at the WCI.
Defendants ADMIT that Jessie Schneider is the Segregation
Supervisor at the WCI. Defendants ALLEGE that Jessie Schneider is a Lieutenant at WCI. Defendants ADMIT that Andrew Moungey is a Correctional Officer at WCI.
Defendants
ADMIT that Nathan Tank is a Correctional Officer at the WCI.
-2Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 9 Document 13
III.
PREVIOUS LAWSUITS III.
Answering paragraph III of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: A.
Answering paragraph III A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and therefore DENY. B.
Answering paragraph III B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and therefore DENIES. C.
Answering paragraph III C of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent this paragraph
alleges any facts, the defendants DENY. IV.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM IV.
Answering paragraph IV A of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: 1.
Answering paragraph IV A 1 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that, on September 11, 2012, Defendant Meli issued a directive that Segregation and North Program inmates would be handcuffed behind the back on most occasions. Defendants further ADMIT that Greff and Schneider are supervisors in the Segregation unit. 2.
Answering paragraph IV A 2 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 3.
Answering paragraph IV A 3 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
-3Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 9 Document 13
4.
Answering paragraph IV A 4 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore DENY. 5.
Answering paragraph IV A 5 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendant Moungey was escorting another inmate, and Defendant Tank was escorting Wilks. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 6.
Answering paragraph IV A 6 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendant Tank tethered the plaintiff to the cell door. Defendants DENY that plaintiff’s cell was maliciously searched, haphazardly strewn in disarray, looked like a tornado hit it, or in any other way inappropriately searched. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore DENY. 7.
Answering paragraph IV A 7 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff asked to see the sergeant. Defendants DENY that the cell was “extremely dishelled condition.” Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore DENY. 8.
Answering paragraph IV A 8 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 9.
Answering paragraph IV A 9 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 10.
Answering paragraph IV A 10 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
-4Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 4 of 9 Document 13
11.
Answering paragraph IV A 11 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 12.
Answering paragraph IV A 12 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 13.
Answering paragraph IV A 13 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that leg restraints were applied and that the plaintiff was ordered to stand. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 14.
Answering paragraph IV A 14 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the defendants started the escort by walking the plaintiff backwards. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 15.
Answering paragraph IV A 15 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY that the defendants were applying a “threathold.” Defendants ADMIT the remaining allegations. 16.
Answering paragraph IV A 16 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff informed Defendant Sabish that he would cooperate with the strip search. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 17.
Answering paragraph IV A 17 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that plaintiff’s clothes were cut off and that his shoes and socks were removed. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 18.
Answering paragraph IV A 18 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of whether plaintiff told Lt. Sabish that “he was not consenting to being sexually
-5Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 5 of 9 Document 13
assaulted by anyone” and therefore DENY. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 19.
Answering paragraph IV A 19 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that a staff assisted strip search was completed. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 20.
Answering paragraph IV A 20 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 21.
Answering paragraph IV A 21 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 22.
Answering paragraph IV A 22 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth regarding the allegations of how the staff assisted strip search affected plaintiff and therefore DENY. Defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff filed a PREA complaint. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that plaintiff filed a lawsuit then voluntarily dismissed it before screening and therefore DENY. Defendants ADMIT that Defendant Greff wrote plaintiff a conduct report for lying about staff. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 23.
Answering paragraph IV A 23 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 24.
Answering paragraph IV A 24 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff was placed in control status where he remained for most of the 24 hours without soap, a washcloth, towel, toothbrush, or toothpaste. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations.
-6Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 6 of 9 Document 13
25.
Answering paragraph IV A 25 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants a misuse of force. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations, and therefore DENY. 26.
Answering paragraph IV A 26 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 27.
Answering paragraph IV A 27 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 28.
Answering paragraph IV A 28 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that plaintiff filed inmate complaints regarding the incidents in this lawsuit. Defendants further ADMIT that Defendant Strahota dismissed with modification WCI-2013-11810 and that Defendant Pollard approved the rejection of WCI-201320090. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 29.
Answering paragraph IV A 29 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendants Greff and Schneider are supervisors in the Segregation unit. Defendants ALLEGE that Defendant Greff is a Corrections Program Supervisor and Defendant Schneider is the Segregation Security Supervisor. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 30.
Answering paragraph IV A 30 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 31.
Answering paragraph IV A 31 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation and therefore DENY.
-7Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 9 Document 13
32.
Answering paragraph IV A 32 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that their actions were under color of law and DENY that they deprived the plaintiff of any rights. IV.B. LEGAL THEORY IV.
Answering paragraph IV B of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: B.1.-10.
Answering paragraph IV B.1.-10. under the “State briefly your legal
theory” section of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent this paragraph alleges any facts, the defendants DENY. Defendants DENY that they violated any of plaintiff’s rights. V.
RELIEF YOU REQUEST V.
Answering paragraph V of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: V.1-7. Answering paragraphs 1-7 under the “Relief You Request” section of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent these paragraphs allege any facts, the defendants DENY. Defendants DENY that the plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief he seeks. OTHER Defendants DENY any and all allegations not specifically admitted. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1.
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.
This action, to the extent it seeks to sue the defendants in their official capacity, is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 3.
The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
-8Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 8 of 9 Document 13
4.
The defendants do not have the requisite personal involvement sufficient for
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5.
To the extent the plaintiff raises any state law claims, this action is subject to the
requirements, provisions, terms, conditions and limitations of Wis. Stat. § 893.82. 6.
Any damages sustained by the plaintiff were caused by intervening and/or
superseding causes over which these answering defendants had no control, including but not limited to the acts or omissions of the plaintiff. 7.
Any claims for monetary damages in this case are limited under the provision of
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 8.
Some or all of plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the doctrine of issue or claim
preclusion. 9.
The plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages for his claims under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. 10.
Defendants reserve the defense of plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages.
11.
Defendants reserve the right to name additional affirmative defenses as they may
become known through discovery or otherwise in this action. Dated in Madison, Wisconsin this 18 day of June 2014. J.B. VAN HOLLEN Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice Post Office Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 (608) 266-0321 (608) 267-8906 (Fax) [email protected]
/s/Robert B. Bresette ROBERT B. BRESETTE Assistant Attorney General State Bar #1079925 Attorneys for Defendants
-9Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 9 of 9 Document 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Clarence Wilks Bey v. Edward Wall, et al.
14C0011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 18, 2014, using the ECF system I electronically filed: Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint Under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. I hereby certify that I have mailed, by United States Postal Service, a copy to:
Clarence Wilks Bey, #036429 Green Bay Correctional Institution Post Office Box 19033 Green Bay, WI 54307
s/ROBERT B. BRESETTE
Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 1 Document 13-1
CLARENCE C. WILKS BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-CV-11
EDWARD F. WALL, WILLIAM POLLARD, CAPATIN DONALD STRAHOTA, TONY MELI, BRIAN GREFF, CORY SABISH, LT. JESSIE SCHNEIDER, ANDREW MOUNGEY, CO TANK, and JOHN DOES, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NOW COME the defendants, Edward F. Wall, William Pollard, Donald Strahota, Anthony Meli, Brian Greff, Cory Sabish, Jessie Schneider, Andrew Moungey, and Nathan Tank, by their attorneys, J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, and Robert B. Bresette, Assistant Attorney General, and as and for their answer and affirmative defenses to the plaintiff’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as follows: I.
PLACE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT Answering paragraph I of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
I.
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: I.
Answering paragraph I of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
A.
Answering paragraph I A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
B.
Answering paragraph I B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 9 Document 13
II.
PARTIES II.
Answering paragraph II of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: A.
Answering paragraph II A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
Defendants ALLEGE that plaintiff’s legal name is Clarence Wilks. B.
Answering paragraph II B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
C.
Answering paragraph II C of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore DENY. D.
[There is no paragraph II D in the complaint served on the defendants. (Dkt. 1.).]
E.
Answering paragraph II E of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT.
F.
Answering paragraph II F of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that
William Pollard is the Warden of the Waupun Correctional Institution (“WCI”), located at 200 South Madison Street, Post Office Box 351, Waupun, Wisconsin 53963. Defendants DENY that Donald Strahota is the Assistant Warden at the WCI. Defendants ALLEGE that Donald Strahota is the Deputy Warden at the WCI. Defendants ADMIT that Anthony Meli is the Security Director at WCI. Defendants DENY that Brian Greff is the Unit Manager of the Health and Segregation Complex (“HSC”). Defendants ALLEGE that Brian Greff is a Corrections Program Supervisor at WCI.
Defendants ADMIT that Cory Sabish is a Supervising Officer 1
(“Lieutenant”) at the WCI.
Defendants ADMIT that Jessie Schneider is the Segregation
Supervisor at the WCI. Defendants ALLEGE that Jessie Schneider is a Lieutenant at WCI. Defendants ADMIT that Andrew Moungey is a Correctional Officer at WCI.
Defendants
ADMIT that Nathan Tank is a Correctional Officer at the WCI.
-2Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 9 Document 13
III.
PREVIOUS LAWSUITS III.
Answering paragraph III of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: A.
Answering paragraph III A of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and therefore DENY. B.
Answering paragraph III B of plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and therefore DENIES. C.
Answering paragraph III C of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent this paragraph
alleges any facts, the defendants DENY. IV.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM IV.
Answering paragraph IV A of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: 1.
Answering paragraph IV A 1 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that, on September 11, 2012, Defendant Meli issued a directive that Segregation and North Program inmates would be handcuffed behind the back on most occasions. Defendants further ADMIT that Greff and Schneider are supervisors in the Segregation unit. 2.
Answering paragraph IV A 2 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 3.
Answering paragraph IV A 3 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
-3Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 9 Document 13
4.
Answering paragraph IV A 4 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore DENY. 5.
Answering paragraph IV A 5 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendant Moungey was escorting another inmate, and Defendant Tank was escorting Wilks. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 6.
Answering paragraph IV A 6 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendant Tank tethered the plaintiff to the cell door. Defendants DENY that plaintiff’s cell was maliciously searched, haphazardly strewn in disarray, looked like a tornado hit it, or in any other way inappropriately searched. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore DENY. 7.
Answering paragraph IV A 7 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff asked to see the sergeant. Defendants DENY that the cell was “extremely dishelled condition.” Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore DENY. 8.
Answering paragraph IV A 8 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 9.
Answering paragraph IV A 9 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 10.
Answering paragraph IV A 10 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY.
-4Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 4 of 9 Document 13
11.
Answering paragraph IV A 11 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 12.
Answering paragraph IV A 12 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 13.
Answering paragraph IV A 13 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that leg restraints were applied and that the plaintiff was ordered to stand. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 14.
Answering paragraph IV A 14 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the defendants started the escort by walking the plaintiff backwards. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 15.
Answering paragraph IV A 15 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY that the defendants were applying a “threathold.” Defendants ADMIT the remaining allegations. 16.
Answering paragraph IV A 16 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff informed Defendant Sabish that he would cooperate with the strip search. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 17.
Answering paragraph IV A 17 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that plaintiff’s clothes were cut off and that his shoes and socks were removed. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 18.
Answering paragraph IV A 18 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of whether plaintiff told Lt. Sabish that “he was not consenting to being sexually
-5Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 5 of 9 Document 13
assaulted by anyone” and therefore DENY. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 19.
Answering paragraph IV A 19 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that a staff assisted strip search was completed. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations. 20.
Answering paragraph IV A 20 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 21.
Answering paragraph IV A 21 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 22.
Answering paragraph IV A 22 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth regarding the allegations of how the staff assisted strip search affected plaintiff and therefore DENY. Defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff filed a PREA complaint. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that plaintiff filed a lawsuit then voluntarily dismissed it before screening and therefore DENY. Defendants ADMIT that Defendant Greff wrote plaintiff a conduct report for lying about staff. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 23.
Answering paragraph IV A 23 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 24.
Answering paragraph IV A 24 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that the plaintiff was placed in control status where he remained for most of the 24 hours without soap, a washcloth, towel, toothbrush, or toothpaste. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations.
-6Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 6 of 9 Document 13
25.
Answering paragraph IV A 25 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants a misuse of force. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations, and therefore DENY. 26.
Answering paragraph IV A 26 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 27.
Answering paragraph IV A 27 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 28.
Answering paragraph IV A 28 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that plaintiff filed inmate complaints regarding the incidents in this lawsuit. Defendants further ADMIT that Defendant Strahota dismissed with modification WCI-2013-11810 and that Defendant Pollard approved the rejection of WCI-201320090. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 29.
Answering paragraph IV A 29 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that Defendants Greff and Schneider are supervisors in the Segregation unit. Defendants ALLEGE that Defendant Greff is a Corrections Program Supervisor and Defendant Schneider is the Segregation Security Supervisor. Defendants DENY the remaining allegations in the paragraph. 30.
Answering paragraph IV A 30 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants DENY. 31.
Answering paragraph IV A 31 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation and therefore DENY.
-7Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 9 Document 13
32.
Answering paragraph IV A 32 under “The Statement of Claim” section of
plaintiff’s complaint, defendants ADMIT that their actions were under color of law and DENY that they deprived the plaintiff of any rights. IV.B. LEGAL THEORY IV.
Answering paragraph IV B of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: B.1.-10.
Answering paragraph IV B.1.-10. under the “State briefly your legal
theory” section of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent this paragraph alleges any facts, the defendants DENY. Defendants DENY that they violated any of plaintiff’s rights. V.
RELIEF YOU REQUEST V.
Answering paragraph V of plaintiff’s complaint, these answering defendants
ADMIT, DENY, ALLEGE and show the court as follows: V.1-7. Answering paragraphs 1-7 under the “Relief You Request” section of plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent these paragraphs allege any facts, the defendants DENY. Defendants DENY that the plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief he seeks. OTHER Defendants DENY any and all allegations not specifically admitted. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1.
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.
This action, to the extent it seeks to sue the defendants in their official capacity, is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 3.
The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
-8Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 8 of 9 Document 13
4.
The defendants do not have the requisite personal involvement sufficient for
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5.
To the extent the plaintiff raises any state law claims, this action is subject to the
requirements, provisions, terms, conditions and limitations of Wis. Stat. § 893.82. 6.
Any damages sustained by the plaintiff were caused by intervening and/or
superseding causes over which these answering defendants had no control, including but not limited to the acts or omissions of the plaintiff. 7.
Any claims for monetary damages in this case are limited under the provision of
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 8.
Some or all of plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the doctrine of issue or claim
preclusion. 9.
The plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages for his claims under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. 10.
Defendants reserve the defense of plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages.
11.
Defendants reserve the right to name additional affirmative defenses as they may
become known through discovery or otherwise in this action. Dated in Madison, Wisconsin this 18 day of June 2014. J.B. VAN HOLLEN Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice Post Office Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 (608) 266-0321 (608) 267-8906 (Fax) [email protected]
/s/Robert B. Bresette ROBERT B. BRESETTE Assistant Attorney General State Bar #1079925 Attorneys for Defendants
-9Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 9 of 9 Document 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Clarence Wilks Bey v. Edward Wall, et al.
14C0011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 18, 2014, using the ECF system I electronically filed: Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint Under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. I hereby certify that I have mailed, by United States Postal Service, a copy to:
Clarence Wilks Bey, #036429 Green Bay Correctional Institution Post Office Box 19033 Green Bay, WI 54307
s/ROBERT B. BRESETTE
Case 2:14-cv-00011-WEC Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 1 Document 13-1
