|
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
March 25, 2010
David
R. Schanker
Clerk of Court of Appeals
|
|
NOTICE
|
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
|
|
|
Appeal No.
|
|
|
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
|
IN COURT OF
APPEALS
|
|
|
DISTRICT IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titus Henderson,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Peter Huibregtse, Rick Raemisch, Sgt. Jones, C.O. Caya and
G. Boughton,
Respondents-Respondents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Grant County: Robert
P. Van De Hey, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J., Vergeront and Higginbotham, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Titus Henderson appeals an order
dismissing his petition for a temporary restraining order. We affirm.
¶2 Henderson’s
petition named prison officials as defendants.
Henderson
relied on the harassment injunction statute, Wis.
Stat. § 813.125
(2007-08). He alleged various misdeeds committed against
Henderson in
prison by prison staff. The circuit
court dismissed the petition on the ground that Henderson had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as required by Wis.
Stat. § 801.02(7)(b).
¶3 Henderson’s
opening brief on appeal makes few, if any arguments related to exhaustion of
remedies. He does not argue that the
record, as it currently exists, shows exhaustion. The closest he comes is arguing that prison
staff prevented him from sending documents to the court to show he exhausted
his remedies. However, the circuit court
held an evidentiary hearing at which Henderson
testified that staff had prevented him from sending his documents, and the
court apparently found that testimony not credible. The court stated that Henderson had not shown he had been
prohibited from showing exhaustion of remedies.
Based on the record before us, this finding is not clearly
erroneous. See Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2). Therefore, we conclude the court properly
dismissed this action for failure to exhaust remedies.
¶4 To the extent Henderson
makes additional arguments about exhaustion in his reply brief, we decline to
consider those because the respondents have not had an opportunity to
respond. See Swartwout v. Bilsie,
100 Wis. 2d
342, 346 n.2, 302 N.W.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1981).
By the
Court.—Order affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.