O'Keefe v. Clarke
1:14-cv-00834
E.D. Wis.Nov 12, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Timothy O’Keefe, a pro se inmate, filed a § 1983 suit alleging multiple constitutional violations arising from his detention at the Milwaukee County Jail; previous complaints were dismissed for pleading defects and misjoined claims.
- The second amended complaint narrowed defendants to Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and asserted six claims: (1) forced to walk without shoes despite foot neuropathy; (2) grievance forms must be handed to pod officers, chilling First Amendment rights; (3) visiting-room monitors were disabled to prevent complaints; (4) cell infestation by "sewage bugs" caused repeated bites; (5) limited access to usable legal materials; and (6) repeatedly served undercooked chicken.
- The central procedural question concerned dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim; the court considered whether Clarke had the requisite personal involvement for § 1983 liability and whether plaintiff had standing for some claims.
- For several claims the court found either lack of personal involvement by Clarke or lack of standing/injury; some claims also failed on legal principles (no right to a particular library quality; no right to secret grievance submission; jails need not provide specific communication forms).
- The action was dismissed, in forma pauperis status was granted for payment of the filing fee over time, the dismissal was recorded as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith absent bonafide arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal involvement for medical/food/bug claims (Claims 1,4,6) | Clarke should be liable because he was the sheriff and thus knew or had duty to know about conditions harming O’Keefe | Sheriff not personally involved; no factual allegation Clarke knew of or participated in the alleged deprivations | Dismissed: supervisory status alone insufficient; plaintiff failed to plead Clarke’s personal knowledge or participation (no § 1983 claim) |
| Grievance procedure confidentiality (Claim 2) | Requirement that grievances be handed to pod officers chills First Amendment petitioning and needs injunctive relief | Procedure does not violate constitutional rights; grievances inherently read by staff; plaintiff lacks injury and is no longer detained so claim is moot | Dismissed: no constitutional right to secret grievances; lack of standing and mootness |
| Disabled visiting-room monitors (Claim 3) | Turning off monitors prevented inmates from complaining to family/media, violating First Amendment | Jail not required to provide that specific means of communication; inmates could still communicate by mail or orally | Dismissed: no meaningful First Amendment impairment and plaintiff failed to allege personal injury or standing |
| Access to legal materials/library quality (Claim 5) | Jail’s torn/outdated law books violated First Amendment right to receive information and impaired access to the law | Plaintiff had no allegation he was denied his own mailed materials or access to counsel; no right to a taxpayer-funded library of particular quality | Dismissed: First Amendment protects communication access, not entitlement to specific library materials; no impairment of access to courts alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) (supervisory status does not alone establish § 1983 liability; liability depends on personal knowledge and actions)
- Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006) (wardens not liable for subordinates’ violations absent personal participation or approval)
- Jackson v. Frank, 509 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2007) (prisoners retain First Amendment right to receive information through the mail)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints must allege sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim)