The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. The Board continues to be perplexed as to why DOC continues to press a sovereign immunity defense in its responses to claims brought to this Board. Sovereign immunity is simply not a defense to claims brought to this Board. DOC would be better served dedicating more of its response addressing the facts presented as opposed to a legal defense that is inapposite. DOC’s 1 ½ pages of boiler plate language on sovereign immunity does nothing aid the Board in making its decision.
8. Oscar Garner of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $69.84 for the value of 5 books allegedly lost by DOC personnel in September 2013. The claimant was transferred from Waupun Correctional Facility (WCI) to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). He states that when he left WCI he had 14 books but that when he arrived at WSPF, the outgoing property inventory from WCI indicated they had sent 12 books and the incoming inventory at WSPF showed receipt of only 9 books. The claimant filed an inmate complaint regarding the missing books but the complaint was denied. The clamant states that he did not have access to the books and that they therefore could only have been misplaced by DOC staff. The claimant disputes DOC’s assertion that the discrepancy between the incoming and outgoing property inventories could be due to a difference in the way publications are counted at each institution. The claimant states that a book is clearly a publication and it is therefore unlikely that it would not be counted as such at each institution. The claimant requests reimbursement for the cost of his 5 missing books.
DOC believes the claimant has not met his burden to show that DOC staff negligently handled his property and therefore recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that the property inventories presented as evidence by the clamant, at best, show that the staff at each institution simply counted the publications differently. DOC believes the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects the state from any legal liability regarding this claim. DOC further believes there is no equitable basis for payment of this claim.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. The Board continues to be perplexed as to why DOC continues to press a sovereign immunity defense in its responses to claims brought to this Board. Sovereign immunity is simply not a defense to claims brought to this Board. DOC would be better served dedicating more of its response addressing the facts presented as opposed to a legal defense that is inapposite. DOC’s 1 ½ pages of boiler plate language on sovereign immunity does nothing aid the Board in making its decision.
9. Jermaine McFarland of Fox Lake, Wisconsin claims $237.21 for value of property allegedly lost, stolen, or improperly destroyed by DOC personnel. The claimant is an inmate at Fox Lake Correctional Institution (FLCI). He states that when he was sent to segregation on 12/29/12, his property was packed up by FLCI officers. The claimant notes that he did not have access to his property while in seg. The claimant states that he became aware that some of his property was missing when he was escorted to the seg property room on 1/4/13 and told that he had too much property and that some of it would have to be destroyed. The clamant states that he told the seg property officer, Officer Richter, that he believed some of his property was missing and that Officer Richter told the claimant that “was of no concern”. The claimant states that Officer Richter told him to find out who packed his property and file an inmate complaint. The claimant states that he made several attempts to contact various FLCI staff to find out who packed his property. Because the 14-day time limit to file an inmate complaint was approaching, the claimant was forced to file his complaint before he was able to determine exactly what property was missing. The claimant states that when he was released from seg and again had access to his property, he immediately inventoried it and made a list of the missing items. He states he sent the list to Warden Clemments on 2/6/13 and that the Warden replied several days later that he had received the list and would respond through the inmate complaint system. On 2/18/13 the claimant’s inmate complaint was denied because he had not provided sufficient evidence by failing to provide a list of the missing items. The clamant appealed the decision and his appeal was denied. The claimant notes that if he had not filed his complaint by 1/18/13, it would have been denied as being past the 14-day time limit. The claimant states that he submitted a list of the missing items and that Warden Clemments and the ICE staff ignored his submission and wrongly denied his complaint. The claimant alleges that there is an “epidemic” of property going missing at FLCI from inmates who are sent to seg and that 9 of 10 inmates sent to seg at FLCI lose property. The claimant further states that DOC’s allegation that the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects DOC from liability in the matter is false. The claimant points to DOC 309(3) Wis. Admin. Code, which provides that DOC is responsible for repair or replacement of lost or damaged property caused by institution staff.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that the claimant failed to provide a list of missing items when he filed his inmate complaint and that the complaint was denied for that reason. DOC believes the claimant has failed to provide any evidence that DOC staff is responsible for the missing property and that it is more likely that the claimant himself lost, traded, or had stolen the property over the years. DOC believes the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects the state from any legal liability regarding this claim. DOC further believes there is no equitable basis for payment of this claim.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. The Board continues to be perplexed as to why DOC continues to press a sovereign immunity defense in its responses to claims brought to this Board. Sovereign immunity is simply not a defense to claims brought to this Board. DOC would be better served dedicating more of its response addressing the facts presented as opposed to a legal defense that is inapposite. DOC’s 1 ½ pages of boiler plate language on sovereign immunity does nothing aid the Board in making its decision.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Stanley Johnson
Robert F. Munson
Amanda Faessler
Catherine Nelsen
Maria Dominguez
Anthony J. Machicote
Oscar Garner
Jermaine McFarland
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats: Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 17th day of October, 2014.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
BRIAN HAGEDORN
Representative of the Governor
PATRICIA STRACHOTA
Assembly Finance Committee
