IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LARON MCKINLEY BEY,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 13-CV-952-JPS

EDWARD F. WALL, WILLIAM POLLARD,
DONALD STRAHADA, TONY MELI, BRIAN
GREFF, LIEUTENANT SABISH, JOSEPH
BEAHM, JEREMY L. STANIEC, JESSIE J.
SCHNEIDER, SHANE M. WALLER, C.O. GIL,
and JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The defendants, by their attorneys, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, and Assistant
Attorneys General John R. Sweeney and Brandon T. Flugaur submit these proposed findings of
fact in support of the response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
1.

McKinley has a prior history of being assaultive with correctional staff which led

to McKinley’s placement in administrative confinement. (Affidavit of Anthony Meli (Meli Aff.)
dated 02/18/14) at ¶ 42.)
2.

McKinley was involved in one past incident where he stabbed a lieutenant in the

neck with a pen. (Meli Aff. ¶ 43.)
3.

Security staff is aware of McKinley’s assaultive history, and the incident

referenced above is used as part of the WCI security staff training curriculum. (Meli Aff. ¶ 43.)

Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 8 Document 54

 4.

Around August or September of 2012, WCI Security Director Anthony Meli devised

a rear cuff (hands behind the back) policy and procedure and directed Defendants Greff and
Schneider to implement rear cuffing in their areas of supervision (WCI’s segregation housing
areas). (Meli Aff. ¶ 36.)
5.

On Monday, September 10, 2012, WCI began handcuffing Segregation and North

Program inmates behind the back on most occasions when they are removed from their cells.
This change was made from a staff safety standpoint. It has long been Security Director Meli’s
opinion that handcuffing behind the back gives security staff more control while escorting
inmates. Security Director Meli also believes it will reduce the number of trap-side incidents
(spitting, dashing, holding the trap, etc.) because the inmate will be facing away from staff
during the handcuffing process. Staff safety is a major concern for everyone, especially while
working in Segregation. (Meli Aff. ¶ 37.)
6.

Correctional staff have been instructed that rear handcuffing will be utilized for

all movement of inmates, with exceptions if an inmate is going to be in restraints for an extended
period of time (over 30 minutes); or an inmate is coming out to attend programming, dental
appointments, medical appointments requiring range of motion, blood drawing, visiting, legal
recreation, or file reviews. (Meli Aff. ¶ 38.)
7.

In these cases, the inmate will be restrained in front and the restraint belt will be

utilized. (Meli Aff. ¶ 39.)
8.

Training concerning the application of restraints has been conducted with the

segregation staff as well as some of the vacation/holiday staff on shift and will continue.
Correctional staff has been instructed to take the time to speak with the regular sergeants and

2
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 2 of 8 Document 54

 correctional officers if they are working in Segregation or the North Program area so that they
can become familiar with handcuffing process. (Meli Aff. ¶ 40.)
Correctional Officer Beahm did not twist and try to break McKinley’s wrist and

9.

fingers on the walk to the strip search cage or outside of the strip search cage on March 8, 2013.
(Affidavit of Joseph Beahm (Beahm Aff.) dated 02/14/14 ¶ 26 and Exhibit 1002 pp. 7-9.)
10.

Officer Beahm did not inflict pain upon McKinley for twenty continuous minutes on

March 8, 2013, or at any other time. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 27.)
11.

Officer Beahm would not want to jeopardize his safety, or the safety of the other

correctional staff by holding an inmate that needed to go into control status any longer than
necessary. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 27.)
12.

Officer Beahm also did not jump into the air and come down with the heel of his

boot onto McKinley’s ankle. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 28.)
13.

A taser was not used during the March 8, 2013 incident with McKinley. (Beahm

Aff. ¶ 23.)
14.

Pursuant to Wis. Admin. Code DOC 306.17(2), a “strip search,” means a search

in which the person is required to remove all clothes, and includes examination of the inmate’s
clothing and body and visual inspection of body cavities. Any staff member may conduct a
visual inspection of body cavities. A strip search is conducted by two staff, one of which must
be of the same sex as the inmate unless an emergency situation exists.

Wis. Admin. Code DOC

306.17(2); (Meli Aff. ¶ 11.)
15.

Inmate searches are critical to the security of an institution. (Meli Aff. ¶ 12.)

3
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 3 of 8 Document 54

 16.

Contraband is a direct threat to the safety of staff, inmates, and the institution as a

whole. Weapons can be used to threaten, injure, or kill staff or inmates and they may be an
inducement to cause a disturbance which threatens everyone in the institution. (Meli Aff. ¶ 15.)
17.

Strip searches are conducted at the direction of a supervisor or under specific

circumstances including inmates entering or leaving a segregation unit or a change of status within a
segregation unit. (Meli Aff. ¶ 16.)
18.

Before a search is conducted, staff inform the inmate that a search is about to occur,

the nature of the search, and the place where the search is to occur. (Meli Aff. ¶ 17.)
19.

A proper strip search is performed as follows: the correctional staff direct the inmate

to remove all clothing and hand it over to the searching staff member. Once received, the staff
member will place the clothing in a clean and secure area, away from inmate contact. Once the
inmate is completely unclothed, the staff member will visually inspect the entire body, including
hair, ears, mouth, nose, hands armpits, groin area, between the toes, bottoms of feet, inner portions
of the legs, and rectum. It may be necessary for an uncircumcised male to roll back the foreskin of
his penis for inspection. All clothing and personal articles are inspected and then returned to the
inmate. (Meli Aff. ¶ 18.)
20.

While conducting a strip search, correctional staff explains to the inmate in a casual

tone what they are doing during the pat search. (Meli Aff. ¶ 19.)
21.

During a strip search, the correctional officer does not stop the strip search just

because the inmate complains that he believes the officer is touching (searching) him
inappropriately. If that were to happen, WCI staff would have numerous inmates every day
complaining about the searches, as a way to intimidate the correctional officers and a way for the
inmates to avoid being searched. (Meli Aff. ¶ 28.)

4
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 4 of 8 Document 54

 22.

Strip searches are a necessary part of the security procedures within a prison. If a

staff assisted strip search is conducted properly, the staff member’s hand inevitably will touch the
inmate’s genitals. Some inmates do take offense to this and there have been complaints made by
inmates regarding the thoroughness of the searches. (Meli Aff. ¶ 29.)
23.

Inmates will also complain about the strip search in an attempt to intimidate staff

into not conducting a thorough search in the future. (Meli Aff. ¶ 30.)
24.

Sloppy strip searches aid the inmate by allowing him to conceal and transport

contraband without detection by staff. (Meli Aff. ¶ 31.)
25.

If an inmate complains about the strip search, the correctional officer conducting the

search is to continue to search through to completion. The inmate then has the option, after the
search, of requesting to speak with a security supervisor to make his complaint or to put his
complaint in writing. (Meli Aff. ¶ 32.)
26.

The typical response then would be to have a supervisor interview the inmate to

obtain specific information regarding his allegation, including the names of any witnesses who were
present. If the inmate was cooperative and provided the requested information, the supervisor
would then interview the witnesses, including staff, review any documentation there may be, and
then make a recommendation/conclusion based on the evidence s/he had gathered. (Meli Aff. ¶
33.)
27.

A “staff assisted strip search” is completed when inmates are not compliant with

staff directives. A staff assisted strip search is not something that is done at WCI exclusively. A
staff assisted strip search does not include probing anal cavities or digital body cavity search. A
staff assisted strip search is completed to insure that inmates are not secreting contraband for the
safety of inmates and staff. (Meli Aff. ¶ 34.)

5
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 5 of 8 Document 54

 28.

The difference between a strip search and a staff-assisted strip search is in a strip

search the inmate removes his own clothing and follows staff instructions to show they are not
secreting contraband; in a staff assisted strip search staff remove the clothing and check the areas
where contraband can be secreted. (Meli Aff. ¶ 35.)
29.

On March 8, 2013, at approximately 10:50 a.m., Correctional Officer Staniec moved

from the Upper C-Range after McKinley had just dashed him. “Dashed” means that an unidentified
substance was thrown at and connected with CO Staniec. McKinley had dashed CO Staniec with
liquid feces.

(Affidavit of Cory Sabish dated 02/14/2014 ¶ 9); (Affidavit of Jeremy Staniec dated

02/18/2014 ¶¶ 12-14.)
30.

Staff escorted McKinley to the strip cell as trained using compliance holds to insure

that McKinley would not further assault staff. Only the force necessary to control McKinley was
used to insure his safety and the safety of those around him. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 15 and Exhibit 1002 pp.
7-9.)
31.

Because McKinley was changing to Control Status, Correctional Officer Gill

conducted a staff assisted strip search on March 8, 2013. This is done to ensure that he was not
secreting contraband that could be harmful to him or others. The search was conducted at the
strip cell which is away from the housing wings on the unit and is cleaned regularly.

(Affidavit

of Jeffrey Gill (Gill Aff.) dated 02/18/2014 ¶ 10.)
32.

No other inmates were in the area at the time. (Affidavit of Matthew Burns

(Burns Aff.) dated 02/14/2014 ¶ 13.); (Gill Aff. ¶ 10.)
33.

McKinley had his state issued clothing cut off with the dura shears. Dura shears are

a type of scissors with a blunt outer edge designed to cut off clothing while protecting the person
wearing the clothing. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 16.)

6
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 6 of 8 Document 54

 34.

Officer Gill did not stick both of his “thumbs into and spread open [McKinley’s]

anal cavity” on March 8, 2013. Officer Gill used the back of his hands to spread the buttock.
(Gill Aff. ¶ 11.)
35.

A staff assisted strip search includes examination of the inmate’s clothing and

body and visual inspection of body cavities. (Gill Aff. ¶ 11.); (Meli Aff. ¶ 11.)
36.

McKinley was then secured while a control cell was being set up and cleaned.

(Beahm Aff. ¶ 17.)
37.

At this time, McKinley released feces from his anus. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 18.)

38.

Correctional Officer Beahm then secured McKinley’s head, meaning he held

McKinley’s head to limit his movement for his safety and the safety of staff. Beahm also
instructed McKinley to “stop pooping” and McKinley stopped.
39.

(Beahm Aff. ¶ 19.)

Once the cell was cleaned, McKinley was escorted to cell A-125 and placed into

control status. Control Status is used for inmates who are disruptive or destructive in accordance
with Administrative Code DOC 303.71. (Beahm Aff. ¶ 20.)
40.

Lieutenant Sabish offered McKinley medical attention twice, which McKinley

refused. Inmates who are going into control status are generally offered medical attention. (Beahm
Aff. ¶ 21.)
41.

McKinley has not been subjected daily to psychological techniques in the form of

classical conditioning procedure during food delivery. (Affidavit of Brian Greff (Greff Aff.)
dated 02/13/2014 ¶ 12.)
42.

McKinley is not being subjected to an “intense behavioral treatment plan on a

daily basis.” (Greff Aff. ¶ 13.)

7
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 7 of 8 Document 54

 43.

McKinley has not been subjected to non-consensual psychological coercive

behavioral change or behavioral control techniques. (Greff Aff. ¶ 14.)
44.

Mr. McKinley is seen weekly during clinical rounds by Psychological Services

staff while in segregation at WCI. He routinely denies the opportunity to speak with his clinician
and other PSU staff during clinical rounds or intermittent check-ins. (Affidavit of Leslie Baird
dated 02/17/2014 ¶ 8.)
45.

The medical records do not reflect that McKinley has missed more than 110 meals

between August 9, 2013 and December 29, 2013.

(Affidavit of Belinda Schrubbe dated

02/18/2014 ¶ 42.)
46.

Each segregation cell has a tracking log for when an inmate refuses meals, and

McKinley has refused to accept meals served by Correctional Officer Staniec. (Staniec Aff. ¶ 11
and Exhibit 1014.)
Dated in Madison, Wisconsin this 19th day of February 2014.
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General
s/BRANDON T. FLUGAUR
BRANDON T. FLUGAUR
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1074305
JOHN R. SWEENEY
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1003066
Attorneys for Defendants
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
Sweeney Phone: (608)-264-9457
sweeneyjr@doj.state.wi.us
Flugaur Phone: (608) 266-1780
flugaurbt@doj.state.wi.us
(608) 267-8906 (Fax)
8
Case 2:13-cv-00952-JPS Filed 02/19/14 Page 8 of 8 Document 54