Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-02-2022

Case Style:

Lanita Dotson v. James Faulkner, et al.

Case Number: 20-cv-1767

Judge: Nancy Joseph

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisonsin (Milwaukee County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Milwaukee Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Sarah A Huck

Description: Milwaukee, Wisconsin civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on
Right to Privacy Act violation theories.

LaNita Dotson, who is incarcerated and represented by counsel, brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dotson was allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim and a state law claim against James Faulkner for sexual assault. She was also allowed to proceed on a claim under the theory of supervisor liability against Sarah Cooper, Kalen Ruck, and Amy Finke for the sexual assault that occurred under their supervision. Additionally, she was allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Cooper, Ruck, and Julie Ustruck because they allegedly denied her psychological services or other resources to address the mental and emotional trauma from the sexual assault. Finally, she was allowed to proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Cooper, Finke, and Ruck for arranging a transfer to a higher-security facility and preventing her from pursuing criminal charges.

Cooper, Ruck, Finke, and Ustruck (the State Defendants) have moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that Dotson failed to exhaust her administrative


remedies. (ECF No. 27.) Specifically, they move for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to mental health needs claims against Copper, Ruck, and Ustruck, and the First Amendment retaliation claims against Cooper, Finke, and Ruck. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 3, 23.) For the reasons stated below, the

Outcome: State Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on exhaustion grounds granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case