Johnson, Dontre v. Tegels, Elizabeth et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DONTRE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
23-cv-455-wmc
SHELLY DENO, and
NICHOLAS RICE,
Defendants.
As an incarcerated person now at Stanley Correctional Institution representing
himself, Dontre Johnson filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Jackson
Correctional Institution (“JCI”) officers Shelly Deno and Nicholas Rice violated his civil
rights. (Dkt. #1.) The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed on a First Amendment free
exercise claim against these same defendants for substantially burdening his ability to
practice Christianity by withholding a Bible from him for 23 days. (Dkt. #10.) The parties
have since cross-moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. #19 and Dkt. #28.) For the reasons
explained below, the court will now deny plaintiff’s motion and grant defendants’ motion.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
A. Background
Dontre Johnson is a self-described Christian, who practices daily by reading and
meditating on the Bible. (Johnson Decl. (dkt. #22) ¶ 5.) Johnson was previously an inmate
at JCI, where he was housed in the Neillsville Unit as part of the general population. (Id.
at ¶ 4.) Sherry Deno is a Correctional Officer that handles day-to-day operations in the
Neillsville Unit, and Nicholas Rice is a Corrections Program Supervisor (“CPS”) that
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 1 of 10

2
oversees the Neillsville Unit. (Deno Decl. (dkt. #33) ¶¶ 2-3, 5; Rice Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶¶
2-3.)
B. JCI’s Property Policies
For numerous security reasons, JCI regulates the property that an inmate may
possess. (Rice Decl. (dkt. #31) ¶ 5.) These reasons include preventing: contraband from
entering the institution; inmates from possessing items that can be used dangerously; and
the hoarding of property in tight living spaces. (Id.); see Wis. Admin. Code Div. Adult
Insts. § 309.20.03. In particular, JCI closely regulates inmates’ possessions while they are
held in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”), because the RHU population presents
additional security issues. (Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶ 6.) For example, most inmates
are moved to RHU because they have violated institution rules, behaved poorly, or were
assessed as a danger to themselves or others. (Id.) This includes inmates placed in
Temporary Lock-Up (“TLU”) for disciplinary reasons, which is part of RHU. (Id.)
After an inmate is transferred to the RHU, third-shift staff at JCI typically collects
the inmate’s belongings from general population housing, setting aside the limited items
that he may keep with him in RHU and storing any other items. (Dkt. #31-4.) The officer
separating and packing an inmate’s belongings takes an inventory of all items sent to RHU
on Form DOC-1128; then another officer in the RHU takes another inventory of those
same items upon receipt on that same form. (Id.) The inmate must also review the filled-
out form and the items themselves with an RHU security officer, then sign the form to
verify that he has received the belongings listed on the form. (Id.)
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 2 of 10

3
While in RHU, property regulations allow an inmate to keep four of his own books,
in addition to one of his own religious texts. (Rice Decl. (dkt. #31) ¶ 8; Dkt. 31-2, at 6.)
He also can borrow another four books from the RHU library, including religious texts and
the Bible. (Rice Decl. (dkt. #31) ¶ 8; Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶ 11.) However, for
safety purposes, any book that an inmate keeps in the RHU must also be softcover. (Rice
Decl. (dkt. #31) ¶ 8; Dkt. 31-2, at 6.)
Further, because RHU placement is designed to be temporary, an inmate can only
switch out his personal books every 30 days with other books from his packed-up, personal
belongings set aside when transferred from JCI’s general population housing. (Rice Decl.
(dkt. #31) ¶ 11; Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶ 6; Dkt. #31-3, at 8.) The purpose of this
restriction is to prevent potential loss or misplacement of inmates’ personal property and
prevent an “unnecessary amount of work on staff and resources, when all of the property
is not used during a shortened time.” (Rice Decl. (dkt. #31) ¶ 11; Dunahay Decl. (dkt.
#32) ¶ 6.) An inmate slated to spend less than 90 days in the RHU is also directed to
send any requests for personal belongings to the corrections officers in their former housing
units. (Dkt. #22-3, at 2.)
C. Johnson’s Requests for his Personal Bible
In January 2023, Johnson was transferred from Neillsville Unit to the RHU, where
he was to spend 60 days because of a disciplinary conduct report. (Johnson Decl. (dkt.
#22) ¶ 2; Dkt. #32-1, at 26.) He received his personal property from Neillsville Unit on
January 17, 2023, at which point he was required to review his form DOC-1128, which
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 3 of 10

4
inventoried his personal belongings sent to the RHU. (Dkt. #31-4.) Specifically,
Johnson’s form stated that he had been forwarded one personal item in the category of
“Bible/Koran/Religious Text – as books.” (Id.) Although Johnson signed his form DOC-
1128 on January 17, 2023, his Bible was not among his belongings sent to the RHU, nor
apparently was any other religious text. (Id.); (Johnson Decl. (dkt. #22) ¶ 11)
Before Johnson ever received any of his belongings, he had already sent a property
request form to Correctional Officer Deno on January 16, 2023. (Dkt. #22-2, at 1.)
Among other items requested, Johnson asked for his Bible, which unfortunately was
hardcover. (Id.; Dkt. #32-1, at 2.) Specifically, he wrote, “I would like these items from
my property: … [two other books], 1 Hand Bible.” (Dkt. #22-2, at 1.) By the time Officer
Deno reviewed Johnson’s request form on January 20, 2023, however, his Form DOC-
1128 had already been completed. (Id.) Thus, she responded to Johnson’s request by
advising, “Your pack-up TLU property shows you were sent 4-books. That’s all that’s
allowed.” (Id.)
In addition, Deno attests that she reviewed Johnson’s DOC 1128 form, which
indicated he had one religious text in his possession in the RHU. (Deno Decl. (dkt #33)
¶ 8.) Thus, she “believed he had already received his one religious text, and four softcover
books; therefore, I wrote Johnson back telling him that already received his four books and
that was all that he was allowed.” (Id.) Because she did not personally pack his property,
Deno further attests that she did not know whether he owned more than one religious text.
(Id. ¶ 9.) More specifically, Officer Deno attests that she “did not purposely deny Johnson
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 4 of 10

5
his Bible”; rather, based on her review of the DOC-1128 inventory form, Deno believed
that Johnson already had a religious text as allowed by policy. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Regardless, after hearing back from Officer Deno, Johnson sent another property
request to Neillsville Unit’s Supervisor Rice, on January 23, 2023. (Dkt. #22-2, at 2-3.)
This time, Johnson represented,
“On or around 01/17/2023, I was issued TLU property that was selected by someone
in Neillsville randomly. The issued items are things that I do not need here in
segregation. I will render them over to be placed back in my overall property.
[Instead,] I would like to request these items: [1] small hand bible, [2] hand
dictionary, [3] blue prison litigation handbook [and 4] black battling the
administration handbook.”
(Id. at 3.) In addition, Johnson requesting two, different folders containing “legal work”
and “typing paper.” (Id.) Rice then apparently delegated any follow-up to a lower officer,
who responded by saying, “He received 4 books.” (Id at 2.)
Apparently after receiving a copy of this response, Johnson wrote to Rice again,
saying: “This is my third attempt to receive my personal property. I would like: my Hand
Bible [and three other books]… I will return the four books that were randomly selected
and given to me upon receipt of these four books.” (Dkt. #22-2, at 4 (emphasis in
original.)) Rice himself responded to Johnson at this point, explaining that: “Per policy
you can exchange after either 30 or 35 days. 4 Books were given for TLU.” (Id.) Even so,
Rice now states in his declaration that he did “not intend to deprive Johnson of his religious
textbook [but] … believed [he] was following policy by allowing Johnson to have one
religious text in his cell, based on the documentation [DOC-1128] received.” (Rice Decl.
(dkt. #32) ¶ 20.) Because Rice did not personally pack Johnson’s property, he further
attests to being unaware that Johnson “had not been issued his Bible when he went to
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 5 of 10

6
TLU,” nor, at the time he responded, was he aware that Johnson “did not receive it because
it was hardcover.” (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.)
After three failed attempts to obtain his Bible from Neillsville staff, Johnson next
wrote to JCI’s Inmate Complaint Examiner (“ICE”), who responded that he should contact
Captain Erin Dunahay, the supervisor of the RHU at that time. (Dkt. #22-2, at 5;
Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶¶ 2-3.) Accordingly, Johnson further wrote Dunahay a follow-
up letter, explaining that in “an attempt to follow protocol as outline in Wis. Adm. Code
DOC 310,” he had “been denied on three occasions [his] Holy Bible” and “would like for
my Bible from my property to be issued to [him]. The other matter of being denied [his]
Bible since 01/16/2023 will be addressed through the 310 protocol.” (Dkt. #22-2, at 5.)
In response, Captain Dunahay then advised Johnson that, “You should have addressed this
with me sooner. I sent [a copy to] Rice and informed him it’s not part of the allowed book
for property — it’s under its own section — you can have a Bible & 4 books.” (Id. at 6.)
When she spoke to Rice about the incident, Captain Dunahay also attests that Rice said
he “believed that Johnson had already received his religious text according to the property
receipt signed by Johnson.” (Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶ 11.)
Ultimately, Johnson was given a small, softcover Bible on February 9, 2023, since
he could not have his hardcover, personal Bible while in the RHU. (Dkt. #32-1, at 2.)
Captain Dunahay also represents that Johnson could have requested a Bible from the RHU
library at any time or discussed the issue with her personally, as she conducted her weekday
rounds, which she says would have enabled her to obtain a Bible for him more promptly.
(Dunahay Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶ 11.)
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 6 of 10

7
OPINION
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows that “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact[,] and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must provide evidence “on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party.”
Trade Fin. Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 406-07 (7th Cir. 2009). In reviewing
the evidence, the court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
An incarcerated person maintains a limited First Amendment right to practice his
religion while in prison. Tarpley v. Allen Cnty., 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2002). To
show that prison officials violated this right at summary judgment, a plaintiff must “submit
evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the defendants personally and
unjustifiably placed a substantial burden on his religious practices.” Neely-Bey Tarik-El v.
Conley, 912 F.3d 989, 1003 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Thompson v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376, 379
(7th Cir. 2016)). More specifically, to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set
forth evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that prison officials intentionally
burdened his religious practice. Thompson, 809 F.3d at 380-381; see, e.g., Garner v.
Muenchow, 715 F. App'x 533, 536 (7th Cir. 2017) (“The only real issue is whether the
record allows a factfinder to conclude that the defendants intended to prevent [plaintiff]
from practicing [his religion].”) (emphasis added).
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 7 of 10

8
Certainly, intentionally preventing an incarcerated person from accessing an
essential religious text like the Bible is considered a substantial burden on his religious
practice. See Garner, 715 F. App’x at 536 (citing Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 253–57
(3d Cir. 2003); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir. 2007)). However, plaintiff
has not provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants
did so intentionally. To begin, there is no reasonable dispute that Officer Deno and
Supervisor Rice: (1) did not pack Johnson’s belongings; (2) had no personal knowledge of
any religious texts he owned; and (3) after receiving his requests for his Bible, reviewed his
DOC-1128 inventory form before responding, which indicated that Johnson already
possessed the one religious text permitted by the RHU property regulations. (Deno Decl.
(dkt #33) ¶¶ 8-10; Rice Decl. (dkt. #32) ¶¶ 17-20.) Regardless, Johnson’s requests for his
Bible addressed to both defendants Deno and Rice also unfortunately failed to convey that
he was not in possession of any religious text while he was in RHU. Instead, he stated that
he would swap out the books that he already had (which, from the DOC-1128 form, looked
to include his one permitted religious text) in exchange for his Bible. (Dkt. #22-2, at 1-
4.) In other words, the record shows that Johnson was denied access to his Bible at worst
as the result of a miscommunication, not due to either of the named defendants’
intentional actions. Moreover, since Johnson continued to insist on receipt of his hard cover
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 8 of 10

9
Bible, which violated safety protocols in the RHU (no doubt because the covers could be
fashioned into a weapon), the request would have had to be denied anyway.1
As a result, no reasonable jury could conclude that these defendants intentionally
withheld Johnson’s Bible from him while he was in the RHU. See Garner, 715 F. App’x at
536-537; Thompson, 809 F.3d at 380-381. To the contrary, the evidence of record at
summary judgment shows that defendants had every reason to assume Johnson’s DOC-
1128 inventory form accurately reflected his receipt of an allotted, single religious text at
the time defendants responded to his request for his personal Bible. Further, they were
entitled to rely on Johnson’s own written confirmation on that form. See Krispin v. Core,
No. 09-CV-292-BBC, 2010 WL 547534, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 11, 2010) (“Although
plaintiff may have wanted defendants to infer that he needed [other accommodations],
prison officials are not required to be mind readers.”) (citing Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d
521, 526 (7th Cir. 2004)).
Thus, the result of defendants’ original misunderstanding, which contributed to
plaintiff unfortunately being without a Bible for more than three weeks, was no doubt
distressing for Johnson, who states that he was “spiritually traumatized” by the experience.
(Johnson Decl. (dkt. #22) ¶¶ 12-14.) However, without submitting any evidence that
defendants intentionally withheld his personal Bible from him, Johnson cannot sustain his
free exercise claim. See Garner, 715 F. App’x at 536-537; Thompson, 809 F.3d at 380-381.
1 Certainly, a reasonable accommodation could have been made sooner by suggesting plaintiff
obtain a soft cover bible from the library or through a separate purchase, but the failure by plaintiff
to pursue either avenue is hardly evidence of the defendants’ desire to intentionally deprive him of
this essential religious text.
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 9 of 10

10
Given the undisputed facts, therefore, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. #19) is DENIED.
2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. #28) is GRANTED.
3) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Entered this 16th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00455-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 12/16/25 Page 10 of 10