Zastrow v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2:11-cv-00371

Zastrow, a Wisconsin state prisoner at GBCI, states a §1983 claim for denial of a marriage request to Trina Lewis.
Mosher, as Marriage Coordinator at GBCI, denied the marriage after reviewing Zastrow’s file and finding policy noncompliance.
DAI Policy 309.00.06 requires: (i) spouse on visiting list for at least one year; (ii) in-person premarital counseling; (iii) no security risks; and (iv) other conditions.
Pollard (former GBCI warden) and, later, Pollard again through review, affirmed Mosher’s denial; counseling and visiting-list prerequisites were central.
Zastrow sought relief through DOC Inmate Complaint Review System; ICE, CCE, and then Cole reviewed and dismissed the complaint for lack of policy violation.
Defendants argued their actions were reasonably related to penological interests and that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability for §1983 based on personal involvement	Francois, Rose, Baenen, and Cole participated in the denial.	They lacked authority to reverse and had no personal involvement in the denial.	These defendants dismissed; not personally liable.
Qualified immunity for Mosher and Pollard	Denial violated clearly established rights; counseling requirement and visiting-list policy were unlawful.	Rights were not clearly established; actions were reasonable.	Qualified immunity protects Mosher and Pollard from monetary damages; declaratory relief only.
Whether Turner v. Safley supports the denial as related to penological interests	Counseling and visiting-list requirements were not clearly necessary; videoconference could suffice.	Requirements promote safety and rehabilitation; denial reasonable under policy.	Unable to determine if the outright denial was exaggerated or justified; genuine issue remains; partial summary judgment on merits denied.
Adequacy of accommodation for premarital counseling (in-person vs videoconference)	Videoconference counseling should be allowed to prevent undue barrier.	In-person counseling required by policy; videoconference not accommodated.	No clear policy justification shown on record; not resolved in favor of the inmate; remains part of Turner analysis.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (right to marry limited by legitimate penological interests)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (ruling against prisoner on an inmate complaint does not establish liability)
Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006) (personal involvement required for §1983 liability; administrative acts insufficient)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (establishing clearly established right; precedent beyond debate needed for immunity)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established standard requires precedent placing the question beyond debate)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (clarifies reasonable considerations for qualified immunity analyses)
Toms v. Taft, 338 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2003) (court recognized feasibility of alternatives to reach legitimate interests)