Harris, Jr. v. Kijek
2:25-cv-00762
E.D. Wis.Aug 6, 2025Background
- Donte S. Harris, Jr., an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging civil rights violations by three prison staff members stemming from incidents on October 28, 2023.
- Harris engaged in self-harm in his cell and informed Correctional Officer (CO) Martinez and Sergeant (Sgt.) Kijek that he was suicidal and required medical attention and observation; Martinez radioed Kijek, who then ordered Harris' arm back inside before both officers left the cell.
- Harris alleges further self-harm occurred before staff returned and took him for medical attention; he was placed on observation status.
- Following his return, Harris discovered personal property missing after his cell was packed up by staff against a lieutenant’s instructions.
- Harris’ complaint also asserts that the loss or destruction of his property constituted a separate constitutional violation, and possibly retaliation after he mentioned filing a complaint.
- This order screens Harris’ complaint for legal sufficiency and rules on his in forma pauperis motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference—self-harm | Harris was left unattended after alerting staff | Not yet developed | Sufficient claim against Kijek and Martinez to proceed |
| Due process—loss of property | Staff failed to inventory/return personal items | Not yet developed | Claim dismissed; post-deprivation remedies adequate |
| Retaliation for filing complaint | Missing property was retaliation for complaints | Not yet developed | Claim dismissed; no facts show defendants caused the loss |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Sets deliberate indifference standard under Eighth Amendment for inmate harm)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Establishes plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Random and unauthorized deprivation of property does not violate due process if adequate state remedies exist)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Elaborates plausibility requirement for claims in civil complaints)