Jackson v. Gantner, No. 2:2021cv00640 - Document 33 (E.D. Wis. 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 1/25/22 granting 19 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The retaliation claim against Gantner is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Jacksons failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(MP)

Download PDF
Jackson v. Gantner Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LONNIE L. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-cv-0640-bhl LISA GANTNER, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lonnie Jackson, who is serving a state prison sentence at the Fox Lake Correctional Institution and representing herself, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that her civil rights were violated when she was previously incarcerated at the Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution. She is proceeding on a retaliation claim against Defendant Lisa Gantner and an access to the courts claim against Gantner and two other Defendants. On December 16, 2021, Gantner filed a motion for partial summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. Dkt. No. 19. She asserted that Jackson never filed any inmate complaint about her retaliating against Jackson for being a jailhouse lawyer. Dkt. No. 20. On January 18, 2022, Jackson “concede[d] that the defendants are correct in their assertions that [Jackson] failed to properly exhaust her administrative remedies relating only to the portion of her complaint relating to the retaliation allegations.” Dkt. No. 25 at 2. Jackson acknowledged that “she did in fact fail to put the defendants on proper notice as it related to the retaliation portion of her complaint, and does not object to the Court’s granting of partial summary judgment as it relates to only the retaliation claim . . . .” Id. Case 2:21-cv-00640-BHL Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2 Document 33 Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, based on the undisputed facts showing that Jackson failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies in connection with her retaliation claim, the Court will grant Gantner’s motion and will dismiss her retaliation claim. Finally, on January 21, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 31. The Court reminds Jackson that, under Civil L. R. 7(b), her response to the motion is due within 21 days of service of the motion, or by February 11, 2022. Civil L. R. 7(d) states that the Court may grant a motion as a sanction if the responding party fails to comply with the rule’s briefing requirements. If Jackson believes she needs more time to prepare her response, she must file a motion for an extension of time before her response is due. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Gantner’s motion for partial summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED, and the retaliation claim against Gantner is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Jackson’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on January 25, 2022. s/ Brett H. Ludwig BRETT H. LUDWIG United States District Judge 2 Case 2:21-cv-00640-BHL Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2 Document 33

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.