DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant was transferred to a facility in South Dakota pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC). DOC states that property allowed by ICC partner institutions is limited. Therefore, in November 2015 DCI staff inventoried the claimant’s property and found open/unsealed items. DOC states that open perishable/consumable items cannot be transferred to another institution. Open hygiene items may be transferred, but only if they are in clear containers, which the claimant’s open hygiene items were not. DOC staff completed a property receipt/disposition form and also an incident report on the destroyed items. An ICE filed by the claimant was rejected because the examiner found that DOC had properly disposed of the property items. That decision was upheld on appeal.
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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
9. Jake J. Sizemore of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $162.90 for a television allegedly broken by DOC staff. The claimant states that he watched his TV on the morning of January 12, 2017, and the TV was functioning perfectly. He left for recreation and when he returned to his cell he was told by CO Bliss that DOC staff had performed a cell search while he was at recreation. Later that day, the claimant turned on his TV and the screen was fuzzy. The claimant noticed that the piece in the back of the TV where the coaxial cable connects was now very loose. He alleges that this was not true before the cell search. The claimant spoke to CO Bliss, who denied touching the claimant’s TV. The claimant alleges that CO Bliss was very defensive when he spoke to him. The claimant filed an ICE complaint but it was denied, as was his appeal. The claimant alleges that his complaint was denied because DOC staff stick together. Because cell searches are always done when an inmate is out of the cell and the officers do not wear body cams, there is no way to get hard evidence when officers damage inmate property. The claimant requests reimbursement for his damaged television.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant’s ICE complaint was denied because the examiner found that the staff who conducted the claimant’s cell search did not touch or move the claimant’s television. This decision was upheld on appeal. DOC believes the claimant has provided no evidence that DOC staff damaged his television and recommends denial of the 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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
10. Elese Taylor of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $76.49 for the cost to repair a television allegedly damaged by DOC staff. The claimant states that in November 2016 he was moved to a new cell. He moved his TV into his new cell and Sgt. Primmer plugged the coaxial cord into the maintenance chase wall. The claimant alleges that when Sgt. Primmer did so, he pulled the coaxial connector out of the back of the TV. The claimant states that he did not realize what had happened until the next morning, when he turned on the TV for the first time since the cell move. The claimant states that he spoke to Sgt. Primmer, who admitted accidentally damaging the TV. The claimant filed an ICE complaint, which was denied. He tried to file an appeal but was given the wrong complaint number to file under, so the appeal was rejected. The claimant requests reimbursement for the cost of repairing his television.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant filed a complaint and the Complaint Examiner found that when the TV broke, the claimant told an officer, “I was moving my TV and it broke. I think it was Primmer’s fault.” DOC notes that the clamant stated that Sgt. Primmer did not touch his TV, but only plugged it into the outlet in the maintenance chase and that the claimant hooked the coaxial cable up to his television. DOC believes the claimant has provided no evidence that staff damaged his television and recommends denial 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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
11. Matthew Tyler of Mauston, Wisconsin claims $8,256.53 for damages related to property allegedly improperly withheld and/or destroyed by DHS staff. The claimant is civilly committed at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center (SRSTC) pursuant to Chapter 980, Wis. Stats. Because of a probation revocation, the claimant was transferred from SRSTC to the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF) on 6/2/11. The claimant states that he was not allowed his money or property when he was transferred to MSDF. The claimant points to SRSTC policy SR 115(12)(E), which allows allowable patient property to be transferred to a DOC facility and provides for storage at SRSTC for property that cannot be transferred to a DOC facility. The claimant states that he made several attempts to obtain his money and allowable property while he was housed at MSDF but was unsuccessful. SRSTC staff insisted that he had to mail his property out—it could not be transferred to MSDF or stored at SRSTC. The claimant eventually had his property mailed out to a family member. The claimant notes that other SRSTC patients in similar circumstances have not been required to send out their property, pursuant to SR 115(12)(E). The claimant returned to SRSTC in February 2012 and his family mailed back his unopened boxes of property. Despite having been allowed prior to his transfer to MSDF, a number of property items were denied and destroyed. The claimant pursued all available remedies to obtain his property and eventually filed suit in Juneau Co. Circuit Court and the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The claimant admits that he did not prevail on his property issues in court, but only because the court found he still had adequate post-deprivation remedies available. The claimant notes that DHS’s reply consists of its US District Court brief but no supporting documentation or evidence. The claimant believes DHS had no rational basis to deny him his property and requests reimbursement for his damages. DHS denies that it improperly refused or disposed of the claimant’s property and recommends denial of this claim. DHS states that SRSTC has a written policy covering what happens to patient property upon patient transfer to DOC. Per that policy, SRSTC holds the property for up to 45 days from the date of the transfer and the patient must provide an address to which the property is mailed. After 45 days, the property is destroyed or donated. DHS notes that, despite the claimant’s failure to provide an address within 45 days, DHS still did not dispose of the claimant’s property, but gave him another opportunity to mail out the property. The claimant eventually arranged to mail out his property. The claimant returned to SRSTC in February 2012. In March 2012, SRSTC received the claimant’s property from his family. The claimant was given all allowable property. However, certain items are not allowed to be imported into SRSTC, therefore, those items were denied. The claimant was again given the opportunity to have his denied property mailed out but he failed to provide an address or otherwise arrange for disposition of the property. The denied property was therefore destroyed or donated per SRSTC policy. Finally, DHS notes that the claimant pursued relief in administrative proceedings, state court, and federal court and his claims were dismissed. DHS denies any wrongdoing in its handling of the claimant’s property and recommends denial 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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
12. Dorian Williams of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $209.95 for the value of a television allegedly damaged by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). The claimant alleges that on 12/12/15 he was instructed to move to another cell. The claimant states that Sgt. Furrer unplugged his television, which caused it to “blow out.” The claimant alleges that Sgt. Furrer told him to file a complaint and put the sergeant down as a witness. The claimant states that Sgt. Furrer signed the claimant’s complaint form as testament to the truth of the complaint. The claimant notes that his television was less than a year old at the time of the incident and was working properly. The claimant also disputes DOC’s assertion that there was a crack in the screen—he states there was no crack. The claimant’s complaint was denied. However, the claimant notes that the investigator did not speak to Sgt. Furrer. The claimant also believes that WSPF electronics staff should have personally inspected the television, which they did not. Finally, the claimant states that there is an ongoing problem with power surges in the outlets at WSPF, which the institution has failed to address, and that his is not the only television damaged by “blowing out” due to the faulty outlets. The claimant requests reimbursement for the value of his television.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC notes that both the institution electrician and the electronic tech staff agreed that the damage to the claimant’s television could not have been caused by simply unplugging the TV. DOC states that the WSPF property officer inspected the television and found a crack in the screen, consistent with pressure being applied to the screen or the TV being dropped. DOC points to the fact that the claimant admits DOC did not drop or knock over the television. DOC believes the claimant has failed to provide evidence of negligence by DOC staff and that this claim should be denied.
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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
13. David M. Wilson of Portage, Wisconsin claims $65.00 for the value of hobby items allegedly improperly destroyed by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution. He states that several items of his property were confiscated as contraband. The claimant does not dispute that he had some contraband items in his property, however, he disputes DOC’s assertion that his hobby items were altered and therefore contraband. The claimant states that hobby items are allowed pursuant to institution policy 309. The claimant also notes that hobby items are altered by their very nature, since they begin as raw materials which are crafted into finished items. The claimant states that the conduct report issued by DOC was read to him and he was asked to accept disposition of the report. The claimant alleges that it was not until after he had accepted disposition of the conduct report that he received a copy of it and realized that his hobby items had been incorrectly classified as contraband. The claimant states that he contacted the unit manager, who later wrote back that she had not had time to look at his property to determine what was contraband before the items were disposed of. The claimant believes his hobby items should not have been classified as contraband and requests reimbursement for the value of the items.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC records indicate that the claimant was found to be in possession of altered property, which was properly disposed of as contraband. The claimant was issued a conduct report for possessing contraband. DOC points to the fact that the claimant consented to disposition of the conduct report and did not contest it. The claimant therefore consented to the destruction of his contraband property. The claimant filed an inmate complaint, however, because he agreed to disposition of the conduct report, he admitted his guilt and his complaint was denied. DOC believes the claimant has not submitted any evidence of negligence on the part of DOC staff and recommends denial 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 which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Bobbie Bowen
Mark B. Brown (2 claims)
Dennis Buford, Sr.
Edward B. Burgess
Keith S. Gary
Tduardo J. Head
Victor Robinson
Jake J. Sizemore
Elese Taylor
Matthew Tyler
Dorian Williams
David M. Wilson
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 10st day of July, 2017.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
CHRISTOPHER N. GREEN
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
KATIE E. IGNATOWSKI
Representative of the Governor
LUTHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
MARY FELZKOWSKI
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
Referrals and Receipt of Committee Reports Concerning Proposed Administrative Rules
The joint committee for review of Administrative Rules reported and recommended:
Relating to scheduling of beta-hydroxy thiofentanyl and butyrk fentanyl.
Relating to electronic building permits.
Relating to scheduling of thiafentanil.
Relating to scheduling of AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA.
Relating to scheduling of brivaracetam.
STEPHEN NASS
Senate Chairperson
_____________
Adjournment
Senator Fitzgerald, with unanimous consent, asked that the Senate stand adjourned until Thursday, July 13, 2017.
Adjourned.
3:16 P.M.
