Self-Harming Wisconsin Prisoner Settles Failure-to-Protect Suit for $7,000
by Sam Rutherford
Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution has been plagued by prisoner deaths and suicides, the most of recent of which are reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, Apr. 2025, p.33.] One of those who survived a suicide attempt at the lockup, Tyler Milton, wrote to PLN on June 23, 2024, about a lawsuit he filed pro se in federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin against guards and other prison officials who failed to protect him from self-harm.
Milton, who has a history of self-harming and suicidal ideation, was in Waupun’s solitary confinement unit in February 2023, when he admitted to a guard named Nelson that he had razor blades in his possession and intended to cut himself with them. Prisoners in solitary are not allowed to possess razor blades, so Nelson asked him to relinquish the items. But when Milton refused—remember, he was suicidal—Nelson allegedly did nothing else.
The prisoner also told three other guards—named Schumann, Martin and Sgt. Aronson—that he was going to cut himself with a razor and asked to see a psychologist. The guards referred that request to guard supervisor Sgt. Kijek, who also ignored it. The first guard, Nelson, later reported that Kijek said he didn’t care about the danger to the prisoner—in fact, he asked only to be informed when Milton was done cutting himself.
Soon thereafter, Milton began slicing into himself with the razor blades, leaving what he described as a “wide, deep gash” in his flesh. A guard named Felsky witnessed this but took no action to prevent Milton from self-harming before he was subsequently transferred to a local hospital emergency room for treatment and afterward returned to prison.
Milton filed his handwritten suit in October 2023. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he accused the guards of violating his Eighth Amendment guarantee of free from cruel and unusual punishment by their deliberate indifference to his obvious and announced risk of self-harm. Such claims entail three elements: (1) a strong likelihood that the prisoner would seriously harm himself in the near future; (2) staff knowledge of that strong likelihood; and (3) evidence that staff consciously failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the prisoner from harming himself, all as laid out in Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012).
Applying this standard to Milton’s case, the district court screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A on October 17, 2023, finding that claims should proceed against each of the named defendants. The court specifically noted that it was required to accept Milton’s factual allegations as true and liberally construe his pro se complaint in light of the controlling legal standard, as held in Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011). Prisoners suffering from suicidal ideation should take note of these legal precedents in the event that they are also met with the same deliberate indifference.
Before the district court could issue that ruling, however, the DOC agreed to settle the case with a $7,000 payment to Milton. The agency did not admit wrongdoing, typical in settlements. The DOC also stipulated that when the funds were deposited into Milton’s prisoner trust account, it would “waive and discharge the debts and obligations” associated with the account then. Milton is to be congratulated on successful pursuit of his claim, especially since he was a pro se plaintiff throughout. See: Milton v. Kijek, USDC (W.D. Wis.), Case No. 3:23-cv-00548.
In his letter to PLN, Milton said that he wanted to bring “much needed light to incarcerated citizens’ mental health, or lack thereof.” He also wanted to “show the complete disregard for basic human safety” that guards exhibited in his case. Sadly, it was not an aberration but par for the course.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login