UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTIUCT OF WISCONSIN

KENNETH HARRIS,
Pl£!intiff,

v.

Case No. 07-C-678

GREGORY GRANtS, et aI.,
Defendants.
REPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT
JEFFREY A. SCHWARTZ, Ph. D.

A 3rEXHIBIT.l-'
. DeP,OnontSCHoJ4\Ity=i:.·

·Dato~Rplr.~
-~

Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D.
1610 La Pradera Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 379·9400 f FAX (408) 379·9410
jaslcrm@nol.com

Kenneth Harris versus Gregory Grams et. al.
August 27, 2008

Introduction and Background
My name is Jeffrey A. Schwartz and my office is at 1610 La Pradern Drive in Campbell, California. 1 am
the president ofLETRA. Inc.• n sman criminal justice training:md consulting ~rgnnization that has had
offices in the San Francisco Bay area since its incorporation in Junc, 1972. I have wotked full time with
law enforcement and corrcctionnl agencies across the United States and C:mada for approximately 35
years, both as LETRA's president and as a private consult:ult. The largest proportion of my work for the
last 20 yL'ars has been with prisons or jails. A copy of my resume is attached to this report as AppenetLx A.
I have served as an expert witness on law enforcement and corrections issues for approximately 15 years.
In the last few years, expert witness work has constituted perhaps 10%-20% of my total professional timc.
I charge $250 per hour for consultation. document review nnd other preplU"ation activities and $350 per
hour for actunl testimony at trial or in deposition. A copy of cases I have worked on as an expert witness
is attached to this report as Appendix B.
On June 30: 2008 I was contacted b}' phone about the possibility of serving as an expert witness in this
action by Carlos Pabellon. an attorney representing dle plaintiff, Kenneth Harris. Mr. PttbeUon scnt me 11
few documents to review initially llS it is my practice to look at the fact situation in enough dctnil to
determine ifI will accept the case. I signed an expert and confidentiality ngreement on August 1. 2008.
Mr. Pabellon subsequen.tly requc:sted n. written report of my professional opinions about the case.

Preparation
A. Prior to preparing this report. I have reviewed the following documents from this case:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Expert & Confidentiality Agreement..2 pgs.
Position Description. for Kal1y Ryan. Officer 1. Position # 700088A. 6 pgs.
Organizational Chart - no title
Reclassification Request/Report for Katly Ryan
Memo from H. Ezalarab 10/24/97
Trnnsfer form '"Dept. of Employment Relations" for Kally Ryan 2/6/96
Personnel Turnaround Document
Letter from Warden Endicott 1/26/96
Position Description. for Katly Rynn. Officer 1. Position # 312063. 6 pgs.

Aug. 26, 200~

Report ofJeffrey A. Schw:artz. Ph.D.: Harris v. GTlIms

10.

11.
12.
13.

14.
15.

16.
17.

Organizationnl Chart - Columbia Correctional Institution. Security Section Staff
Employee Statement of Knowledge Executive Directive #42A, 10/24/06
Memo from Mati Brown - 9/18/06
Vehicle Use Agreement - 4/7/05
Employee Statem~nt of Acknowledgement Regarding Protected Health
Information 3/17/05
Memo from Marl Brown 10/12/04
Employee Statement of Acknowledgement Regarding Fraternization 9/7/04
Employee Statement .of Acknowledgement Regarding DOC Information

Techno}ogy-7/31/03
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.

30.
31.
32.

. 33.
34.
35.

Employee Acknowledgement of Exec. ,Directives 16; 42. 42A - 11 /23/01
Memo from Marl Brown - 11/28/00
Memo from Mari Brown - 3/17/00
Memo from Lt. Jelinek - 8/16/99
Veteran's New Hire Form - 2/5/99
~mployce Statement of Acknowledgement Regarding DOC Arrest and Conviction
Policy - 7/16/98
Certificate of Apprenticeship docs. 3 pgs - 10/26/97
Memo from Marl Brown - 3/5/98
Letter from Warden - 4/29/97
Qualification Inquicy Form re: Gun Control Act- 3/10/97
Letter from Warden Endicott - 1/28/97
Memo from Marl Brown - 11/7/96
Letter frQm Warden Endicott - 6/4/96
Letter from Capt Trattles - 3/18/96
Employee Acknowledgement Regardiog DOC Fraternization Policy 2/6/96
Employee Statement of Acknowledgement Regarding DOC Drug & Alcohol
Policy - 2/6/96
Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2"" pg dated
2/21/08
Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2t'.d pg dated

1/23/07
36.

37.
38.
39.

.

Performance Planning & Development Report 1/23/06
Performance Planning & Development Report 3/25/05
Performance Planning & Development Report 3/5/04
Performance Planning & Development Report -

Kally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2nd pg dated

J<al1y Ryan - 2 pgs, 2"" pg dated
I<al1y Ryan - 2 pgs. 2nd pg dated
Kally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2ed pg dated

2/6/03
40.

Performance Planning & Development Report - I<ally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2nd pg dated

2/6/02.
41.

4/2/01
42.
43.

.

Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2"" pg dated

.

Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2".d pg dated
3/29/00
Performance Planning & Devclopmeot Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs. 2nd pg dated
4/20/99
2

Aug. 26, 2008

Report ofJcffrcy A. Schw:artz, Ph.D.: Harris v. Grams

44.

45.
46.
47.
48.

49.
50.
51.

52
53.
54.

55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.

65.
66.
67.

68.
69.
70.
71.

72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.

78.
79..
80.
81.
82.

Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2"~ pg dated
2/10/98
Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2"~ pg dated
1/30/97 .
Pcrformnnce Planning & Development Repon - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2ed pg dated
7/15/96
Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2nd pg dated
5/1/96
Performance Planning & Development Report - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2nd pg dated
3/19/96
Reallocation & Contract Increase - Kally Ryan - 5/21/00
Personnel Tumaround Document - K. Ryan - 2/7/96
Deduction Auth. Report - K. Ryan - 11/1/9
Employee TimeSheet - K. Ryan - 1/6/96
Conflict of Interest Form - K. Ryan - 10/31/95
Memo from Gary Fergor - 11/24/95
Performance Planning & Dcvc1opmentForm - Kally Ryan - 2 pgs, 2nd pg dated
12/1/95
Letter of Hire - Ka11y Ryan, 2 pgs - 8/28/95
Dept. of Employee Relations form, Pamela Brandon - 9/29/95
Ust of items in Employee Packet - 10/27/95
Interface Agency, Personnel Turnaround Doc
Acknowledgement/Agreement CTC Stds - K Ryan, 10/16/95
Employee Statement on Having Read Work Rules - K. Ryan -10/20/95
Medical Emergency Procedure 4!-11/05, 5 pgs'
Medical Emergency Communication Procedure 5/1/02, 3 pgs
Incident Report 4/16/05, 30 pgs
Letter to Judge Daniel George 9/23/05, 2pgs
Incident Report (exhibit 22), 4 pgs
Incident Report (exhibit 21), 6/8/04, 7 pgs
Let1er to Judge DlUliel George 9/6/05, 2 pgs
Certification and Decision, 2/25/08, 27 pgs
Letter to Suzanne Ward 10/14/05,2 pgs
Hearing Transcript, SUZlUlne Ward vs. ~tate of Wisconsin 9/26/06, 39 pgs
Court Order, 3/14/06
Letter from Sue Ward, 5/24/05
Convers~tion notes. 5/24/05
Pkg. of Post Orders for various pOStS at Columbia Conectionnl Institution, most
dated Feb or March '07 or '08, some dates redacted. 74 pgs.
Offender Movement History - Kelde Moraine Correctional Institution 5/15/08
Colup1bia Correctional Institution. Post orders 2/26/07. 11 pgs.
Incident Report, Sgt. Hinickle, 4/17/05,3 pgs
Memo to Capt.]. Nickel, 6/6/05, 2 pgs.
Incident Report, Sgt. Hinickle, 8/22/05, 3 pgs.
Declarations of Dennis Pringle, Doug Landis, Shawn Pierce. Cordell Carter, Kevin
Evans, and Michael Farrell, 7/05, 9 pgs.
Declaration of DuJuan Walker 8/6/07.2 pgs

3

Aug. 26, 2008

Rc:port ofJc:ffrey A. Schwartz. Ph.D.: H:mi, v. Gnms

83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
lOt.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
-122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.

Transcript of Hearing in John Doe investingation, in re: Kenneth H~rris, filed
4/6/06,58 pgs.
Log (unit log?) 4/11/05,34 pgs.
Certification Request, Linda Kinkel. 4/22/91, 2 pgs.
Memo to Gerald Berge, 4/22/91, 1 pg.
Memo to Gerald Berge, 4/9/91, t pg.
Lener to Linda Kinkel, 4/16/91, 1 pg.
Letterto Linda Kinkel, 4/9/91. 1 pg.
Surplus Code Request, Linda Kinkel, 4/17/91
Certification Request, Linda Kinkel, t t /17/89, 1 pg.
Letter to linda Kinkel, 11/13/89, 1 pg.
ReciassHication Request, Linda Kinkel, 5/23/88, 1 pg.
Letter to linda Kinkel, 7/31/86
Certification Rcquest, Lindn Kinkel, 8/5/86, 1 pg.
I'osition Transaction, 8/1/86, 1 pg.
Position Description, Linda Kinkel ~/11/91, 7 pgs.
Position Description, Linda Kinke14/11/91, 7 pgs.
Position Description, Linda Kinkel 10/18/89, 7 pgs.
Position Description, Linda Kinkel 7/1/86, 6 pgs.
Additional Personnel Records, Linda rfmickle, 93 pgs
Letter from Carlos Pabellon 8/8/08, 2 pgs.
Enclosure letter from Carlos Pabellon
.
Notice of Offender placed in temporary lockup, Kenneth Harris, 8/22/05
lCE receipt complaint #CCI-2005-2'.650, 8/10/0S, 1 pg.
ICE Rejection 8/10/05
Reviewing authority's receipt of rejection appeal, 1<. Harris 8/29/05
Reviewing authority'S decision on complaint rejection 8/31/05
Offender complaint from K. Harris, 8/5/0S, 2 pgs.
Note from J<. Harris 8/9/05
Offender complaint, K. Harris, 8/14/05
Request for review of rejected complaint, K. Harris, 8/20/05
ICE receipt of complaint, K. Harris, 8/8/05
ICE report on complaint, K. Harris, 8/16/05
Reviewer's decision, K. Harris, 8/22/05
CCE receipt of complaint, K Harris, 8/25/05
Cell report of complaint, K Harris, 8/25/05
ODS report of complaint, K Hnuis, 8/25/05, 1 pg.
"Notice" from K. Harris, 8/5/05
Request for corrections compl.'lint examiner review) K Harris, 8/'25/05, 2 pgs.
ICE receipt of complaint, K Harris, 8/25/05
ICE Rejection, K Hams, 8/26/05
Reviewing Authority's receipt of rejection appeal, K Harris, 8/31/05
Reviewing Authority's decision on complaint rejection, K Harris, 8/31/05
Offender Complaint, K Harris. 8/2·l/05
Notice of Offender placed in temporary lockup, K Harris, 8/22/05
Re'luest for Review of a.Rejected Complaint, KHatris, 8/29/05
Note to Warden Grams from K Harris, 8/29/05
ICE receipt of complaint, K Harris, 8/25/05
4

nepon of Jeffrey A. Schw;\nz, Ph.D.: H:mis v. Grams

130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.

137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.·
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.·
111.
172
173.
174.
175.
176.

Aug. 26, 2008

ICE Report of compl1\.int, K Harris, 8/25/05
Reviewer's Decision, K Harris, 8/31/05
CCE Receipt of complaint, 9/06/05
CeE Repon of complaint, 9/7/05
OOS report of complrunt, 9/9/05
Offender complaint, I< Harris, 8/23/05
Letter from Mary Leiser, 8/23/05
Request for Corrections Compl'lint Examiner Review, 9/6/05
ICE receipt of complaint, 9/6/05
ICE report of complaint, 10/5/05
Reviewer's Decision, 10/14/0
Offender Complaint, K Harris, 8/29/05
Request for. Corrections Complaint Examiner Review, 10/18/05. 2 pgs.
RL-vicwing authority's decision on complaint rejection, 9/23/05
Offender complnint, K Harris, 9/6/05
Notice of Submission of Grievnnce llnd WAiver of Rights, K Harris, 9/6/05
Request for Revicw ofRc:jeacd CompL'\im, 9/9/05
ICE Rejection of complaint, 9/8/05
Reviewing authoritis receipt of rejection appeal, 9/14/05
Fox l..ake Correctional lnst. Advocate Report, 9/3/03, 3 pgs.
Wisconsin Administrative Code (pg 62, DOC 303),1 pg.
Fox Lnke Correctional Inst. Advocate Report (handwritten), 8/26/03, 5 pgs.
lCE receipt of complaint, 9/19/05
ICE rejection of complaint, 9/20/05
Revk...ving authority's receipt of rejection nppca19/23/05
Reviewing authority's decision on complnint rejection 9/23/05
Offender complaint. 9/16/05,2 pgs.
Memo to Burt Tammings, 9/20/05
Request for review of rejected complaint, 9/21/05
ICE receipt of complaint, 9/19/05
ICE rejection of complaint 9/19/05
Re....iewing authority's receipt of rejection appcnl9/23/05
Reviewing authority's dccision 9/23/05
Offender complaint 9/16/05
Letter to Warden Grams, 9/16/05, 2 pgs.
Request for review of rejected complaint 9/21/05
ICE receipt 0 f complaint 917/05
stapled pkt, 1" pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-2005-26082, 8/25/05,11 pgs.
stapled pkt, 111 pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCI.200S.24650, 8/10/05, 16 pgs.
stapleel pkt. I" pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-200S-26096, 8/25/05, 10 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1" pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-200S.28560. 9/19/05, 9 pgs.
stapled pkt, l't pgis ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-200S-27218, 9/6/05,12 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1$I pg is ICE Receipt of complaint ·CCI-2005·28564. 9/19/05. 9 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1" pg ICE Receipt of complaint CCI·2006-31522. 10/23/06, 11 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1'1 pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-200S·21483, 7/12/0S, 7 pgs.
lCRS docs, beginning 7/11/05, 7 pgs.
Offender complaint from K Harris, w/attached ,vitness declarations, 7/11/05, 10
pgs.
5

Report ofJeffrey A. Schw:artz, Ph.D.: Harris ,.. Grams

177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
. 191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.

Aug. 26, 2008

Appeal of Adjustment Committee decision, 7/4/05
Adult conduct report, 4/29/05, 2 pgs.
Disciplinary Ht:aring, 4/29/05, 2pgs.
Record of Witness testimony. Charles Cleveland. Dennis Pringle. Michael Vetor
4/29/05. 10 pgs.
Letter to Mary Leiser 4/24/05
. Memo from]. Nickel 4/25/05
Memo to Cel Sec. Ok. & Mary Leiser 4/22/05
Letter and stntement to Mary Leiser, 4/6/05, 11 pgs.
Memo from lvL'U)' Leiser 4/26/05
Memo to CCI Sec. Dir. and Mary Leiser. 4/22/05
Offender's request for attendance of witness, 4/21/05. 2 pgs.
Notice ofMajor DisciplinaryHcaring Rights. 4/18/05, 2 pgs.
Request £01' corrections complnint examiner review 7/25/05. 4 pgs.
Progress notcs "An through "I<" 4/7/05. 11 pgs.
Physician's Orders uLn and "M" 4/16-25/05, 2 pgs.
Sworn Declamtion of Michael Farrell uO" 7/19/05
Affidavit-of William Harris 7/17/05, 2 pgs.
stllpled pkt. lit pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CO-2oo5·14303. 5/5/05. 8 pgs.
stapled pkt. lit pg is ICE Receipt ofcomplaint CCI-2005-13992, 5/3/05. 27 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1" pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CO-2005·12505, 4/19/05. 19 pgs.
stapled pkt. lit pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CO-2oo>12346. 4/18/05.10 pgs.
stapled pkt. 1" pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CO-2oo5-13992, 5/3/05, 26 pgs.
stapled pkt, lit pgis ICE Receipt of complaint CCI-200S-12S0S, 4/19/05. 18 pgs.
stnpled pkt, l't pg is ICE Receipt of complaint CCl-200S-12346, 4/18/05. 7 pgs.
Record of witness testimony, Dennis Pringle, Charles Cleveland, 4/29/05, 8 pgs.
Affidavit of Michael Vetor, 4/24/05. 2pgs
Letter to CCI Sec. Dir. and Mury Leiser, 4/22/05
Offender's request for attendance ofwiUless 11/21/05, 2 pgs.
stapled pkt, 1" pg is Incident Report. 4/29/05,26 pgs.
stapled pkt. l t1 pg is ICE Receipt: of complaint CCI-2005-12505, 4/19/05.22 pgs.
Emergency Room Report, Kenneth Harris, 4/15/05. 2 pgs.
Divine Savior Emergency Dept. 1\-ID chart, 4/15/05
Emerg. Dept. diseparge instrUctions, 4/15/05
Divine Savior Healthcare record of admi...sion. 4/15/05
Emerg. Dept. nurse chart. 4/15/05
Divine Savior Healthcare lab work. cardiac suip, etc.,4/15/05, 4 pgs.
Offsite service request and report, 4/15/05
Patient medication profile, 12/9/04 - 7/12/05
Consentfor~tmentunsigned,4/17/05

Record of admission, 4/17/05
Emergency dept. lvID chart, 4/17/05
Emergency dept. discharge insgtrUctions, 4/17/05
Emergency room report, 4/17/05,2 pgs.
ED nurse chan. 4/17/95
lab work, 4/17 /05~ 2 pgs.
DOC tempomry release 4/17/05
Pnuent medication profile, 12/9/04 - 4/20/05
6

Aug. 26, 2008

Report ofJeffrcy A. SchW:lrtt, Ph.D.: Harris .... Gr:uns

224.
225.
226.
227.
228.

229.
230.
231.

232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
241.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
251.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.

Offsitc Service request anel report, 4/17/05
Rndiology report, 4/20/05, 2 pgs.
I)rogrcss notes. 4/16/05.3 pgs..
Physician's orders, 4/16/05,3 pgs.
Health service request, 8/2.5/05
Medical rdense lIuthorization (nol dated, pcrhnps 1" pg of a 2-pg doc)
Heftlth service request. 7/20/05
Heftlth service request. 7/19/05
Health service request. 7/26/05
Progress nOles, tI/7/05, 7 pgs.
Physician's orders, 4/16/05, 2 pgs.
Modified diet orders. 4/8,19.20/05, 3 pgs.
Progress notes, tI/22/05, 3 pgs.
Physician's orders, 4/20/05, 3 pgs.
Letter to Anne Semrow, 8/7/05, 2 pgs.
Emergency Dept. discharge instructions, 4/17/05.5 pgs.
R:tdiology report, 4/15/05
.
Emerg. dept. !'lID chart, 4/15/05
ED nurse chart, 4/15/05
Memo to Harris from Warden Grams, 4/9/05
Memo from Grams, 4/19/05
Memo from Grams, 4/21/05
Memo from Grams, 4/25/05
Memo from Harris to Grams. 4/23/05, 2 pgs.
Memo from Grams, 5/5/05
Appeal of Adjustment Committee or Hearing Officer's Decision, 5/4/05
Memo from Grams, 5/9/05
Appeal of Adjustment Committee or Hearing Officer's Decision, ",/29/05
Letter to Grams 5/7/05
Memo f~m Grams: 6/14/05
Letter to Grams, date obscured, st1lmped received 6/13/05, 3 pgs.
Letter to Grams, 8/7/05
Memo from Grams, 8/10/05
Letter to Grams, 8/7/05,3 pgs.
Interview/information requcst, 8/9/05, 2 pgs.
Complaint summary report, 7/11/05. 2 pgs.
Memo from Grams., 8/12/05
Letter to Grams, 8/11/05. 2 pgs.
Memo from Grams, 9/9/05
Lettcr to Grams. 9/9/05
Memo from Grams. 9/20/05
Letter to Grams, 9/16/05,2 pgs.
Offender Complaint. 9/16/05, 2 pgs.
Letter to Grams, 9/18/05. 3 pgs.
Letter to Jeffrey Schwarz from Carlos Pnbellon. 8/12/08, 1 p.g
Supplemental Report and attachments from Detective Sgt. Linda Shawback,
6/6/08, 37 pgs
Received August 21, 2008, by email,: Psychological report, 6/22/98,20 pgs.
7

Allg.26,20OS

Report ofJcffR:y A. Schwart2, Ph.D.: Harris v. Grams

271.
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.

Letter to Judge Wimmer from Dr. Fostal 09/12/95.6 pgs.
History nnd l1'catment summary, 08/93. 8 pgs
Psychological Services, clinical contnct, from 3/14/05 to 04/01/08, 18 pgs.
DOC chapter on discipline 12/06. 17 pgs.
Conduct record from 05/9/96 to 11/29/06,2 pgs.
Letter Sue Ward from Gregory Grams 10/14/05.2 pgs.
Transcript of hearing: Ward \Vinsconsin DOC 09/26/06, 233 pgs.
. Court order in Kenneth Harris. John Doe perceding 03/14/06, 1 pg.
Memo Ann from Sue Ward OS/24/05, 1 pg.
Transcript of conversation OS/24/05, 1 pg.
WI DOC Chtlpter 303: December, 2006. 17pgs.
DiscipJinnry record. Kenneth Harris 2 pgs.
WI DOC Chapter 303: Appendix December. 2006, 12 pgs.
l)sychologicnl Services clinicnl notes 03/05 - 04/2008, 18 pgs.
Psychological Report: Kenneth Harris 06/22/98. 20 pgs.
Report to Judge Wimmer 09/12/95,6 pgs.
History nnd treatment summary 08/19/93,9 pgs.

B. In part, this repon also relies on information lreccivcd during a phone interview with Sue
Ward, R.N.• on August 21, 2008. I have not conducted a site visit and I have not reviewed
any physical experience in this cnse. 1 am not a medical expert and I have not attempted to
form opinions about medical treatment issues in this ase. Depositions have not yet been
taken in this case and I reserve the right to add to or change this repon if additional relevant
information becomes nvailable to me after the dnte of this report.

Fact Situation
A. Below nre the salient fucts in this case as 1 understand them from the record to date, as it is
early in the discovery phase of this litigation.

B. At the time of the initial incident in this case. Kenneth Harris was a 53 yelir old male
inmate at the Columbia Correctionnl Institution eCI and in the Wiscons.in Department of
Corrections (\'(71 DOq. Mr. Harris had been incarcerated since 1994 on chnrges of burglary.
He had other. prior convictions and incarcerations. Mr. Harris also bad a long history of
sen.·o.u.s.mllc.n.tnl••
he.n.lt.hiP.ro.b.l.em.s.W.it.h.R.d.i• •O.Si.SofI\t 11 Vcte~nistration
_ 7•••••••••
hospital in
•
1998.
tbe Scvc~llcen or eighteen years after that he was also Variously diagnosed as

!g

•

-~

i

LIIR Fa

•.

r

~

Strong psychOl1ctivc medications were frequently prescribed for Mr9AJs including Lithium
and MeUari\. Mr. Harris has at times suffered from hallucinations and has also bad times when
he reported blackouts and suicidal ideas. He had a dysfunctional childhood characterized by
severe neglect nnd abuse and his record indicates that when he has not been incarcerated he
sometimes hl\S been involved with street drugs. In early to mid 2005. Mr. Harris wns attending
individual psychothempy sessions with n psychologist. Janet Woods; her therapy notes after
individuallherapy sessions with Mr. Hnrris on Murch 28 llnd Apri111. 2005, described him as
lin mild mannered litigious male",

·8

Report ofJcffrcy A. Schw:ul7.. Ph.D.: 1-Jarris v. Grams

Aug. 26, 2008

By April 15, 2005, Mr. Harris had been seriously ill for n few months with acute abdominal
pain and bleeding from internal hemorrhoids as two of the most frequent sympwms. His
. :illrnenl had not been diagnosed beyond the hemorrhoids but he had becn seen frequently by
the Health Services Unit (HSU) Ilt CO nnd had been sent to the hospital and or emergency
room in the community on a few occasions.
On April 15, 2005, Mr. Harris had a particularly bad episode in which he had a large amount
of rectal bleeding and was also vomiting blood. He was taken to the emergency room and
later sent back to the institution. The physician at the hospital prescribed injections of
Toradol for pain every six hours as needed, and Tylenol with codeine (fylenol #3) also for
pain every six hours as needed. .The physician nlso scheduled an ultrasound on April 20, 2005,
to check for gallbladder disease. Mr. Harris was returned to Cel and on April 15 and 16 and
in the early morning hours of April 17, he requested and received Tylenol #3 orally nod
injections ofToradol for his abdominal pain. On April 16 and in the early morning hours of
April 17, Mr. Harris reported acute abdominal pain to security staff and they contacted the on
call nursc;Ms. Mulcbow, who twice came from home to the institution in order to administer
a Torndol injection to Mr. Harris.
At some time before 7 a.m. on April 17, Mr. Harris approached officer Ryan to ask for pain
medication. 1\ disagreement or confronration ensued. Mr. Harris subsequently spoke with
Sergeant Hiniclde, who was in the officer slation (Ububblc'~ on tbe unit. Mr. H1'uris contends
he asked the officer nod the Sergeant to cOnlnct HSU llnd that he needed 1\ Toradol injection,
that he could not take Tylenol #3 because it was only four bours since his last dosc and that
he was in acute pain. Both st.'\ff members contend that he showed no signs of distress and
that he argued about when he would gel his Tylenol 3 but never asked for Toradol or for
either staff to contact HSU.
Mr. Harris was ordered to go fO his room and did go upstairs to the second tier bUt
subsequentl)' returned to the da)' room area and the arb'tlmem or confrontation continuc:d.
Officer Ryan then pushed 110 alarm hutton that summoned the institution respon...e team. l\'lr.
Harris contends thut was done immediately after he said he was going to fde a grievance
against the two staff members for denying him medical care but the two staff members
contend the response team was summoned because Mr. Harris was aggressive and disruptive
and specifically that Sergeant Hinickle fcared for Officer Ryan's safety.

.

One of the officers on the response team swpped the team from immediately ~sing physical
control on Mr. Harris to get him into restrnints. Thllt officer told the team that Mr. Harris
had been sick, looked to be in distress and needed to go to medical. They put Mr. Harris in n
wheelchair and took him to HSU. HSU stafr immediately sent Mr. Harris to the emergency
room of the communily hospital, where he received n Torado) shot for his pain.
When Mr. Harris was returned to the institution later that day he \VIIS immediately placed in
tempomry lock-up (flU) pursuant to :\ clisciplinarr report written by Officer Ryan charging
Mr. Harris with disobeying a direct order ( to return to his room) and disruptive conduct.
Mr. Harris filed a grievance about the conftontation widl Officer Ryan llnd Sergeant Hinickle
and he subsequently filed a grievance about the disciplinary charges plnced against him.

9

Aug. 26, 2008

Report ofJeffrey A. Schwart2, Jlh.D.: Harris v. Grams

Mr. Hnrris filed a .. John Doc" proceeding in the Columbia Couney Court contending that
Corporal Ryan and Sergeant HinickJe were criminally culpable in denying him medical
treatment. Nurse Sue Ward was subpoenaed to testify at that hcaring and was also
subpoenaed to produce documents from Mr. Harris' medical file. Nurse Ward asked several
different staff members bow to respond to the subpoena and specifically what she needed to
do to comply with the request for bringing to Coun or copying docwnents from Mr. Hams'
medical file. One of the stafr that Nurse Ward was directed to was the \V'nrdcn's secretary
and she told Nurse Wnrd she could copy documents from the file or tnkc the whole me with
her to Court and to essentially do whntever Nurse \'(lard thought was best. 1bc detective
Sergeant investigating Mr. Harris' original claim of denial of medical senrices told Nurse Ward
that the subpoena was, in faCt, valid.
Shortly before theJohn Doe hearing. Nurse Sue Ward was placed under investigation for
inappropriately providing docwncnts to inmate Hams, which constinltcd 11 violntion of work
rules, and for frnterni7.ntion. The WI DOC Chief upl Counsel wrote a letter to the Judge
who wns about to hear the John Doe case, with a copy to inmate Harris, informing the Judge
that Nurse Ward was currendy under investigation for fraternization.
TheJudge in the John Doe he:uing found in favor of Mr. Harris, noting that Officer Ryan
and SergeMt Hinickle may have been guill)' of criminal acts in denying medical care to Mr.
Harris.
Nurse Sue Ward filed a ''whisde blower" complaint for retaliation ng.linst the department and
the Administrative Law Judge presiding over that henring found in mVOI of Ms. \Vard,
establishing dlat the disciplinary nction taken against her ali of result of the investigation into
fratcmiz,'ltion and giving documents to nn inmate. was unjustified and retaliatory. The Judge
ordered the department to pay Nurse Ward's court costs nnd legal fees. Sue Ward left \Vl
DOC, contending she did not feel comfortable or safe working there anymore.
Mr. Harris was mso invesu!r.'ted for soliciting staff and was placed in rempomry lock-up
pending the outcome of the investigation. He was not formally charged but contends that his
placement in TLU nod the investigation were further evidence of reWiauon for his grievances
against stnff and his bringing the John Doe nction.
Mr. Harris also contends .that he was trying to secure n job within the prison and there were
occasions when he was the best qualified candidate and that the staff person in charge of the
inmate job wanted to hire him but security managers or administrators overruled the
recommendation and would not allow to him to have a job, also in retaliation for the same
things. Mr. Harris filed n grievance about his deninl of employment. TIle department rejected
th~ grievance and contends that there was no remliation.

Opinions und Analysis

10

Report ofJcffrcy A. SchW:trtz, Ph.D.: Harris v, Grams

Aug. 26, 2008

A. Kenneth Harris was a high maintenance inmate who had frequent medical problems.
Throughout the record in this case I found Mr. Hurds to be an articulate nnd precise
individual.

B. Corrcctionul stuff have a clear and fundamental duty to provide) facilitate and/or
arrange medical services to inmates. WI DOC had appropriate policy) post orders and job
descriptions in place specifying how security were to deat with inmate requests for medical
a~slstance.

In Kally Ryan's personnel file, the job description for the officer 1 position, October 16,
1995, state. in reve1ant pnn at C.S.• "Administer first aid and prescribed oral medication as
directed by medical c1epartmet1t". The same document, at A,3., states, "Pass criterion test
on first aid and CPR".
Also from Kally Ryan's job description. March 12. 1993, for the officer position, at B.3.:
"Make timely referrals direcdy or through the supervisor as appropriate. to medical or social
services specialists". That same document states. at B.7., "Listen to inma.te complaints,
questions. comments and make appropriate referral when required".
In Sgt. Hinickle's file. the position description for Officer 3 (SgtJ. dated April 11, 1991
includes, at B.2. and B.3.• respectively, "Look for medical nnd behavioral problems of
residents for referral to specialists", and "Make referrals direcdy to Corrections medical or
social services specialists."
~nlC

document on "Internal Mnnagement Procedures: Medical Emergency Communications
nod Response Standards. datccl Apriltt, 2005. under "3. Responsibility of staff
encountering a non-life threatening medical condition": "b. contact HSU, Shift Supervisor
nnd/or Control",
Post orders require officers coming on duty to familiarize themselves with the unit log and
to also learn about prior issues on the unil ftom the staff going off duty.
These policies. pOSt orders and job descriptions a~e clt:ar nnd appropriate. They require
front line staff to listen to inmate requests. complaints and questions and make referrals for
specialized sClviccs where appropriate nod, specifically, to contact HSU, the Shift Supervisor
and/or Control when there is a mewcalcondition dlat is not an emergency.

C. In the several days prior to Apri117. 2005. tbe Cel staff, bolll medical,and security, were
helpful and responsive to Mr. Harris's medical problems and pain. There Is no indication
in the record of confrontations with Mr. Harris or of concerns from staff thnt Mr. Harris
was disingenuous in his reports ofpaln. Further, the record reflects that prior to April 17, it
wns obvious to correclional security staff on Mr. Harris' unit tllat he needed continuing
medical care and they also knew he had prescriptions because of serious pain.
In the few months preceding April, 2005. Mr. Harris had frequent medical needs ::md
frequent interaction with both security staff nnd medical staff Rround these medical issues.
11

Repon ofJeffrey A. Schwam, Ph.D.: J-lanis v. Grams

Aug. 26, 2008

Then, in the several days preceding April 17, 2005 Mr. I-Iarris' contacts with staff about his
medical situation became very frequent. There is no indication in the unit log or in any of
the medical notes that staff had confrontations with Mr. Harris about his requests or his
medical situation. There is IIlso no indication that Mr. Harris was dissatisfied with the
response of securit}' staff or of medical staff regarding his access to medical services or his
trClltment. To the contrary, except for the specific interactions with Officer Ryan and
Sergcatl:t Hinickle, the record reflects medical staff and security stnffwho were seriously
concerned about Mr. Harris' condition and went out of their way to be responsive and
helpful. Two incidents, in particular, stand out in this regard. When nurse Mulchow is
contacted about Mr. Harris request for pain medication, she not only comes to dlC
institution immediately, she also instructs the staff that if he needs further pain medication,
she should be contacted at home and that she would come into the institution immediately
to give him another injection. She asks that that be recorded so that all staff dealing with
Mr. Harris arc aware of it.
This second specific has to do with the response team. Rcsponse teams pride themselves
on "backing up" living unit staff and when the living unit staff call a response team, the
teqdencyis for the team to rush in and gtab the inmate or inmates who are out of control
or who need moving (unless the situation is a "cell extraction'j. In this incident the team
did not rush in a grab Mr. Harris but instead paused long enough to survey the situation
and a team member recognized that Mr. Harris had been very sick and was then in medical
distress. The response team changed its plnn immediately and got Mr. Harris into a wheel
chair and escorted him to HSU.
Prior to the April 17 incident, the record in this case with regard to Mr. Harris, is evidence
the WI DOC policies and staff training about the duty of staff to provide medical care to
inmates and the need for security staff to fucilitate access to medical care, \Vas having its
desired effect with most staff.

D. It is well accepted in corrections nationally, in the state of\Visconsin and locally at CCl
that security or custody staff cannot be dIe ug-.tte keepers" for medical or mental health
services.
TIle Federal Performance Based Detention Standards Review Book lists standards for
federal adult correctional facilities. These standards mirror the American Correctional
Association (ACA) Standards for adult institutions but in some cases go beyond those
ACA standards. Standard B.S.l. saues in part, "Ensure written policies and procedures
exist for response to medical, mental, and deoml health needs:' Standard B.5.4. states,
"There is a sufficient health training program for corrections and health care staff."
Stnndnrd B.5.5. states, "Corrections stuff facilitate detainee access to medical care." The
state ofW! Administrative code devotes Chapter 316 to medical and dental services for
inmates and also covers aspects of inmate health services in other chapters, such as chapter
311, dealing with mediCal placement of inmates and medical exams for inmates. Section
316.03 is entided, "Provision of Medical. Dentll1and Nursing Serviccs". A specific
annotated note in that section stntes. "DOC 316.03 provides that health services staff shall
determine the level of acceSS to medical, dental or nursing services and the need to provide
medica~ dental or nursing services on-site or off-site. DOC 316.03 recognizes the
responsibility of the health services staff to make the determination." Local policies. job

12

Repott ofJcCfrcy A. Schw:lflz, Ph.D.: I'lards v. Gr.tms

Aug. 26, 2008

descriptions and post orders at CCI comport to the State Administrative code and a
relevant sample of those arc cited in "13.", above.

It stands [0 reason that security and custody staff in correctional institutions do not have
the medical or mental hc:alth expertise to diabrnose. TIlUS, with regard to mental health
issues, for e.'UU1lple, the traditional message to front line correctional staff is, "treat every .
suicide threat and every mention of suicidal ideas as serious". It is recognized that
individual staff members will have their own thoughts about which inmates arc serious
about suicide, which ate simply seeking attention, etc., but even well intentioned staff may
be wrong and those judgments must be left to staff with professional credentials and
expertise in the area. Dcparunents of corrections work to get staff to err in the direction
of safety. Everyone can dC1l1 with referrals that rum out not to he serious but no one wants
to see a situation in which an inmate complaint or request was ignored and turned into an
inmate death.

E. Officer Ryan and Sergeant Hinickle ench had years-long histories oepoor
communications with inmates, being overly rigid and or overly aggressive, being involved
in unnecessary confrontations, not accepting supervision wen and oC failwe to improve in
these areas.
.
One of Officer I<a11y Ryan's flrSt Performance Planning nnd Development Reports
(Performance Appraisal) in the record is for the year cnding February 1999. It is generally·
acceptable ("meets standards'1 but her Supervisor comments, "if there is one area in which
she may to continue to improve, it is that of interactions with inmates". There is nlso
discussion about the Supervisor stating that Officer Ryan swears at inmates, which Officer
Ryan denies, as she does the Supervisor's comment that she "goes ocr' on irunatcs. The
foUo\\-1og year her performance nppmisal includes the comment, .. interactions with
inmates could improve". That npprnisal also says, U ••• she could be more open to
corrections and suggestions".
For the year ending February, 2002, Officer Ryan's Supervisor has written, among other
remarks. "Officer is generally courteous and tactful, but times (sic) has failed to interact
with others in this manner. Officer R)'lUl could do better at nccepting directions from all
Supervisors". "The appraisal also includes, Uat times, Officer Ryan needs to exhibit more
patience with Olhcr st.'\ff and inml\tes", The following year. her Supervisor comments that
she cno at times be stubborn and inflexible and needs to improve communication with non
securitY staff. The fonowing year (ending February, 2004) Officer Ryan's Supervisor
comments, "Officer Ryan has had some issues regarding her behavior and language in the
kitchen". The most recent performance appraisal in the record for Officer Ryan is for the
period March 2007 to February 2008. That evaluation includes the statement from her
supetvisor, ccKally is generally courteous. but needs to remain calm and professional when
upset." That same evaluation also includes the comment, "Officer Ryan, at times,lets her
emotions get the best of her when she is in disagreement with others".
Sergeant Hinickle has a long record of performance appraisals that cile her lack orability to
accept criticism or supervisory input, her rigidity and her lack of communications skills. .
Her.appraisal for the two yeat period cnding November, 1994, included, "I have on~

13

Report ofJcffrcy A. SchwnrlZ, Ph.D.: Harris v. Grnms

Aug. 26, 2008

again received reports and comments from unit manager Mr. Huibregtse that he started to
receive complaints again hom inmates regarding her manner of supervision and
interactions on the unit." Also, "She should seriously evaluate her personal style of
supervision and methods of controlling inmates". For the year ending November, 1995,
Sergeant Hinickle's evaluation included, "The ar~ of improvement needed is the ability to
project a positive image of her spoken and unspoken messages." The evaluation for the
year N~vcmber, 2001, included, "Sergeant Hinicklc lacks empathy for inmates but does
respond to their needs:' That appraisal also stated, "She may be heavy handed Ilt times in
her appronch but nlwnys gives it her best without compromise".
For the year that included most of the events in this report, Sergeant Hinickle's evaluation
wns from December, 2004 to November, 2005. Her Supervisor stated, "'There continue to
be times when Sergeant Hinickle is vety rigid and direct with her approach to others.
Sergeant Hinickle should strive to be marc low key nnd non-confrontationahnd work on
de-escalation techniques."
The record is clear that the two staff assigned to Mr. Horris living unit the morning of
April 17,2005, each had long records of negative evnluation comments with regard to their
generalllpproach to inmates, their communications skills, their lack of dc-escalation
techniques, etc.

"f. Officer Rynn and Sergeant Hinickle knew that Mr. H:ntris had been seriously IDa day
and a hnlfbefore, on April 15, nnd that he had a standing order for a pain medication.
According to Capt. Morgan's June 6 memo to Capt. Nicho~ Officer Ryan told Capt.
Morgan she knew Mr. Harris had been ill and Sgt. Hinickle indicated dlat she was aware
Mr. Hams had prescnbed pain medication. Mr. Harris clearly remembers repeatedly asking
Officer Ryan and Sgt. Hinickle to conmct HSU so he could have a shot of Toradol. and
Officer Ryan telling him during the argument that he should, "Blow it out your ass."
Officer Ryan does not deny that statement to Capt. Morgan but instead says she "doesn't
rccnil" saying that to 1\t1r. Harris. RN Sue Ward remembers getting 11 phone caU from
Officer Ryan later that day (Aprill7), in which Officer Ryan bragged to her that Mr. Harris
had wanted to see Nurse Waj:d but that, 'We told.him to blow it OUt his ass". RN Sue
Ward was sufficiently upset by that that she told a.fellow nurse in HSU about Officer
Ryan's comments immediately upon hanging up the phone.
There are a number of other reasons that Sgt. Hinickle lUld Officer Ryan knew that Mr.
Harris was ill, required ongoing medical attention and was suffering from serious pain.
The unit log reflected that Mr. Harris had been to the hospital and that Nurse Mulchow
had come in from off duty to administer pain injections to Mr. Harris. His last injection
had been on the shift immediately before their shift so the staff they were relieving were
well aW:lre of the unusual situation. It is also standard practice for unit staff to familiarize
themselves with which inmates nre on which medications, plU'ticulady because at CCI the
security smff dispense most regular prescription mecUcations, rather than the mecUcal staff.

14

-Reporl nfJcffrcy A. SChwlIrtz, Ph.D.: Harris v. Grams

Aug. 26, 2008

G. Officer Ryan and Sergeant Hinick1c had fitst hand knowledgc of Mr. Harris' need for
pain medication and ongoing medical care. They each had a duty to provide Mr. Harris
with that mcdic.ll carc, including arranging for him to get his prescribed Toraaol injection
nnd contacting HSU if there was any question about his immediate need {or medical
attention or his prescriptions. Officer Ryan and Sergeant Hinickle breached their duty to
Mr. K'lnis by willfully refusing him medical attention and, worse, calling a response team
to punish him for his medical problems. It was foreseeable by Officer Ryan and Sergeant
Hinickle that their actions denying medical care to Mr. Harris would result in marc pain
for him and delay any medical contact {or him.
Officer Ryan's and Sergeant Hinick1e's actions violated department policy and their own
post orders/job descriptions in failing to notify the Shift Supervisor, Control and/or HSU
that Mr. Harris was requesting medical attention. Defendants had a duty to provide Mr.
Harris with his prescribcd medication and instead tllcy needlessly caused him pain.
An inmate does not have to use the words" I want to go to HSU" in order for staff to
regard it' as a request for, or need for, medical attcntion.
The version of evcnts provided by Officer Ryan and Sergeant Hinickle on the morning of
'April 17,2005 docs not square with what they said or demonstrated they knew on other
occasions, is inconsistent with Mr. Hams' prior behavior nnd knowledge ofhis own
situation nnd directly contradicted by Nurse Sue \Varo, who had no motivation to discredit
those two officers.
Mr. Harris was well Rware of his prescriptions and had expressed that lhe Tylenol 3 was
sometimes not effective for him for pain control. Mr. Harris had, on every other occasion
after dle Toradol was prescribed, asked fOt that and he had said that rhc Toradol was
effective. All of that is consistent with Mr. Harris' version of events the moming of April
17. Officer Ryan and Sergcant I-Jinickle, howevcr, describe Mr. Harris arguing exclusively
about whcn he would receive his Tylenol 3, without ever mentioning HSU or the Tomdol
that he preferred for pain (and which he could have received becnuse it had been six hours
since his inst injection).
Officer Ryan and Sergeant Hinickle also contradict themselves in various statements
describing this incident about whether they knew Mr. Harris prior to .this incident and
whether Mr. Harris exhibited any signs of distress prior to the arrival of the response team.
Judge Daniel George heard the John Doe nction filed by Mr. Harris. After taking
testimony nod receiving dotuments,Judgc George nUcd that there was probable cause for
the investigation, to proceed w~th the question of whether Officer Ryan and Sgt. Hinickle
. had crimin..illy denied medical services to Mr. Harris.

. 15

Report ofJeffrey A. Schw:ara, Ph.D.: Harris v. Grams

Aug. 26, 2008

H. Sergeant Hinickle's decision to call tbe response tenm was unnecessary, inappropriote
nnd intended to punish Mr. Harris by subjecting him to staff use of force.
Mr. Harris was not physically threatening Officer Ryan and did not require II response
team. IfMr~ Harris had "charged down dlC corrido~' toward Officer Ryan, as Sgt. Hinckle
alleges, his disciplinary report would have included charges of threatening staff or
. assaultiye behavior. It did not. Mr. Harris is described in the record in one place as a "mild
mannered, litigious male inmatcU and in another place as a "53 year old obese inmateU • In
the prior five years (prior to April, 2005) Mr. Harris bad not received a single write-up
(disciplinuy report) for fighting or for any other kind of violent behavior.
·The judgment and actions of the response tet\Jll , stopping short of doing n "take down" of
Mr. Harris and placing him in restraints, and instead recognizing his distress and getting
him immediately to HSU in a wheelchair, was npproprilltc and positive performance. In
those kinds of cases there is strong pressure on n response team to quickly become physical
with an inmate if for no other reason then to ~'back up" the front line staff working on the
floor a~d calling for the temtl.

I. The disciplinary ropon written by Officer Ryan "against Mr. Harris was retalintory and
was also an attempt to deflect the focus from the actions oC Officer Ryan and Sergeant
Hinicklc in denying Mr. Harris necessary medical assistance.

J.

From the point in time when Mr. Harris was returned from the hospital on April!?, and
placed in TLU, fonvnrd,what could bave been a bad but relatively isolated incident of
inappropriate and actionable staff behavior instead snowballed into an ever-widernng
circle of cover-up and retaliation.

K. The cumulative weight of various Rcdons taken by CCl against Mr. Harris in August to
October, 2005, constitutes a clear pattern of retaliation in ~c8pon8e to his initiating the
John Doe action.
In August, 2005, Mr. Harris was denied a job as a Chaplain's clerk although he had n good
reference from a Chaplnin at another institution within WI DOC, he was the only applicant
with ChapL'lin's clerk experience and the OlRplain wanted to hire him. Managers or
administrators within institutional security denied the Chaplain's recommendation. During
that same month, a utility job became availnblc lltld Mr. Harris actually began to work on
that job on a tcmpomry basis but was removed by a security staff member, Sergeant
Lapinski. Mr. Huris has written grievances claiming he was being prohibited from
iostitutional jobs as part of a pattern of retaliation because he had initiated the John Doe
action.
That same month, August, 2008, Mr. Harris requested refills of his prescriptions. The
standard for answering refill requests is five days but two of Mr. Harris's requests were
answered in' ten days llnd the odler took three weeks. ?vir. Harris contencls that he asked

16

Report ofJe(rrey A. Schwanz, Ph.D.: Harris v. GT:lms

Aug. 26, 2008

earlier in August and got no re~ponse whatsoever to that request. Mr. HlU'ris filed a
grievance alleging thc lack of response to his prescription refill request was retaliatory.
In the same August - September, 2005 time frame ~rr. Harris was placed in TLU for
soliciting staff. He was specifically accused of telling a staff member that Sergeant Hiruckle
was ruso Registered Nurse. It is not clear from the record whether that charge was
formally invcsribrated but what is clear is that if Mr. I-lards said that to n staff member, it
should havc, llt most, becn considered a minor violation and not a cause for TLU. 1t is not
uncommon for cOlTccuonnl officers to have other vocational experience or credentials and
it is also common for this to be well known llmong staff and the inmate population. For
example, some correctional officers nrc also ordained ministers. The officer herself or
himself may mention dUll to one or more inmates or another staff may say something like
u Oh, I sec you got thc whole sermon. You knew dlat Miller was an ordained Minister,
didn't you?" Or an inmate might say to a staff member, "'Oid you know that Officer
Drown used to work as a hair stylist? He still does some of th:n on the side." While
nothing is perfect, those kinds of comments would not raise eyebrows in the majority of
prisons and jails in the United Stntes. '!bose comments arc very different than passing
information about a staff member's phone number, address, children or the like. It is
generally recognized that once information is in the inmate population, it is impossible to
. control. \X!hen there is concern about private infonnation being spread among inmates,
the usual staff response is to try to find Ollt how that infonnation is getting to inmates.

L. This case is not about retalIation against RN Suc Ward. It is about denial or medical
treatment and retaliation against Kenneth Hartis. Howcver, the retaliation against Sue
Ward is part and parcel of the department reaction against Mr, Harris and its attempts to
covcr up any factors that might prove exculpatory to Mr. Harris.

M. eCI demonstrated its retaliatory motive townrd Kenneth HarrIs when it retaliated
against Sue Ward by investigating her for fratermation with an inmate nnel then
publishing that charge against her, when there was no evidence or even suggestion chat
she had fraternized with any inmate in any way.
Not only was this charge leveled against RN Sue Ward in retaliation for her testimony at
the John Doe hearing Mr. Harris initiated, thc depllnment's Chief Legal Counsel Kevin
Potter sent a letter to the Judge in the John Doc case and sent B. copy of that lener to Mr.
Harris.
RN Ward filed a complaint under the WI Whistleblower Protection Law claiming
rctaliation. In a Feb. 22,2008 decision, the Administrative Law Judge (At]) found, by a
preponderance of evidencc, "'OOC violated the \'qisconsin Whistleblowcr Protection Law
... and by issuing a letter of reprimand (to Ms. Ward)" ...". In her Memorandum Opinion
on the CAse ALJ Cohn wrote, "First, the ALJ found Ward to be an extremely credible
wimess," She also wrote, «([be ALD finds it highly unusual that DOC's chief legal counsel
would attempt to influence a judge's assessment of a witness' testimony prior to the
hearing date by informing him that she was being investigated for f(aternizntion, an

17

Aug. 26, 2008

Rc:pon ofJeffrcy A. Sch\\.';\fl7., Ph.D.: Harris v. Gr:tms

assertion that was not true."
threat of unlawful rctnlintion

"The AL] believes that Potter's letter itself borders on a
.

In the ALl's Findings of Fact, ALJ Cohn states (p.13. No. 48): "Potter sent a copy of his
letter to Judge George to Grams and to 1<H, therefore violating DOC's policy oHeeping
personnel matters confidential."

N. In spite oCMr. Harris' substantial and serious mental health history, hc was lucid,
articulate and intelligent throughout tl1C events from early April, 2005, through Octobcr,
2005.
In mid April, 2005 Mr. Harris' therapist, Janet \'\loads, describes him as dear and logical.
The clinical notes from Mrs. Woods on October 31, 2005, essentially at the end of the
events summarized in this report, describe his mentnl status as alert, oriented and
cooperative. Hisnffect was appropriate to coment and varied from an.'C.iery to sadness to
elation. No suicidal or homicidal ideation was expressed and she noted no
• • • During the-mid 2005, Mr. Hauis reported increasing
lUl.'Ciery at times to his therapist and at onc point some agitation in addition to the anxiety.
Much of the anxiety was over concem with his medical condition and, when surgery
seemed probable for an anal fistula, he taken to the emergency room with a panic attack.
(The fistula j~p_roved and SUfgery WllS not neede~. ;H~J:egul~y reported that he had

.'IIi'••

The record demonstrates that Mr. Harris was knowledgeable and rational about his pain
medication. At the cnd of the day, however, this case docs not turn on whether Mr. Harris
was a mental health inmate or on his psychological status. Whether Mr. Harris wal; a
mental health inmate or not, ifhe was in pain and ifhe had "nlid prescriptions for pain
medication, the responsibility and tbe duC)' of correctional sccuritr staff was to arrange for
him [0 get his medication as prescribed.
O. Conclusions:

1. <;orrectional staff have a duty to provIde medical services to tbe inmates who are
inc.'Ucerared in their care. Further, correctional staer may not act as gatekeepers
for those medical services.
2. Officer Ryan and Sgt. Hinickle knew or Mr. Harris' medical needs and knew he
had pain medication p~escrJbed.
3. Officer Ryan and Sgt. Hinickle ignored Mr. Harris' medical needs, breaching
their duty and actually exacerbated Mr. Hattis' pain by calling a response team
to punish him instead of contacting HSU. No legitimate correctional objective
was served by delaying his pain medication and contravening his medically
prescribed treatment regimen.

18

8a/27/2888
\

14:37

PAGE

468379941El

Report ofJcrfrcy A. Sehw:lrt%o Ph.D.: .HAals v. GrAm.q

Aug. 26, 2008

4. Officer Ryan, Sgt. Hiniclde and the eel Administtntioll then attempted to cover
\tp the wil1fu.1 dcnin! ofmedical Rcrv.iCes to Ms:. Hattis by rUing disclpllnuy
charges against him and rctnliatcd against Mr. HtWis because he It1itiatcd a
John Doc action in County Court.

19

82/62