District IV
April 16, 2013
To:
Hon. David T. Flanagan III
Circuit Court Judge
215 South Hamilton, Br 12, Rm 8107
Madison, WI 53703
Carlo Esqueda
Clerk of Circuit Court
215 South Hamilton, Room 1000
Madison, WI 53703
Robert Bresette
Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Kevin C. Potter
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Colin N. Gelford 164500
Green Bay Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307-9033
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colin N. Gelford v. Larry Fuchs (L.C. # 2010CV6454) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Higginbotham, Blanchard and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Colin Gelford appeals a summary judgment order that dismissed his lawsuit against two prison officials and the Wisconsin Claims Board. The lawsuit alleged that the officials retaliated against Gelford for filing an inmate complaint about a new prison policy by placing him in temporary lockup and ultimately reassigning him to a different cell block, and it further challenged the constitutionality of statutory indemnification provisions for claims made against state officials.
In this appeal, Gelford contends that the circuit court erred in its determination that the challenged actions stemmed from a proper investigation into whether Gelford had violated prison rules against group resistance and petitions by coordinating an effort by multiple inmates to file identical complaints, rather than filing a group complaint. Gelford argues that the stated reasons for his treatment were pretextual. He also argues that the circuit court improperly dismissed the State Claims Board from the action and should have allowed him to amend his complaint to add the secretary of the department of administration as a defendant. Finally, he complains about protective orders that limited the scope of his discovery efforts.
After reviewing the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1) (2011-12).[1] We further conclude that the circuit court’s decision identified and applied the proper legal standards to the relevant facts to reach the correct conclusion and accordingly we affirm. Specifically, we agree with the circuit court’s analysis that the prison officials’ stated reasons for their actions were supported by the fact that three other inmates did, in fact, file identical complaints. Moreover, Gelford’s summary judgment materials failed to set forth any evidentiary basis to conclude that Gelford’s placement in TCU and assignment to a new cell—which were in conformity with the administrative rules and standard practice—had any retaliatory motive. We also agree with the circuit court that challenging the constitutionality of a statute does not mean that the State Claims Board is a proper party to a lawsuit. In any event, since Gelford did not make sufficient allegations to support a claim against the prison officials, he had no standing to challenge indemnification procedures that would apply only in the event of a successful claim. And finally, we agree with the circuit court that prison officials were not required to respond to discovery requests that related to other inmates, or that were overly broad in nature. We therefore incorporate into this order the circuit court’s decision, which we attach, and summarily affirm on that basis. See Wis. Ct. App. IOP VI(5)(a) (June 13, 1994).
IT IS ORDERED that the circuit court order dismissing Gelford’s lawsuit is summarily affirmed under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
