November 30, 2015 at 1:56 p.m.
Federal court dismisses England lawsuit
Case against former medical examiner sent back to state
Federal court dismisses England lawsuit
England was charged with misconduct in office and other charges in January 2012 following an investigation that began the day after she and an Oneida County sheriff's detective traveled to Fond du Lac to deliver a body to be autopsied. According to the criminal complaint, the detective observed England "picking tissue" from a bag near a body being autopsied and placing it in a plastic container. On the return trip, England talked about also taking a piece of spinal column from the body they had just transported, which she planned to use to train her dog to search for cadavers.
She was charged with four counts of misconduct in office, two counts of theft of movable property under $2,500 and resisting and obstructing an officer. On Jan. 17, 2014, England pled guilty to two of the counts of misconduct in office. The remaining charges were dismissed but read into the record for sentencing purposes.
On Feb. 10, 2014, Forest County Circuit Judge Leon Stenz, who heard the case in Oneida County Circuit Court, handed down a one-year jail sentence and ordered England to serve three years of probation, perform 300 hours of community service, and pay $5,154.97 in restitution. England challenged the sentence on the grounds that Forest County District Attorney Chuck Simono, the special prosecutor on the case, violated the terms of the plea agreement by telling the family of one of the victims they could argue for a longer sentence then the 10 days in jail he was required to argue for under the terms of the agreement. On April 13, 2015, Stenz ruled that Simono did not violate the terms of the plea agreement, but by the time the ruling came down England had completed her jail sentence.
The parents and siblings of one of the persons whose tissue England took to train her dog filed a lawsuit in Oneida County Circuit Court on Jan. 16, 2014. The case was moved to federal court on Feb. 11, 2014, but it stalled while England fought to have her sentence vacated. Once Stenz issued his ruling in April, the case proceeded.
The plaintiffs argued England improperly ordered an autopsy on their family member and violated their rights to procedural and substantive due process. The family also brought state law claims against England for conversion and for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In addition to England, the suit also named Oneida County as a defendant and the county's insurer, Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation, as an intervenor defendant.
In a ruling issued Nov. 25, District Judge James D. Peterson found that England's actions did not violate federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
"Because this case now involves only matters of Wisconsin law, it is appropriate for it to be heard by the state court in which it originated, Oneida County Circuit Court. The court remands plaintiffs' state law claims to Oneida County for resolution," Peterson wrote.
The plaintiffs had claimed that England's actions violated 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, which authorizes lawsuits for damages against individual government officials who violate a plaintiff's rights under the United States Constitution or a federal statute.
According to Peterson's opinion and order "to prevail on their section 1983 claims, plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) that England's wrongful conduct was taken 'under color of law,' and (2) that England deprived plaintiffs of rights protected by federal law. Windle v. City of Marion, 321 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2003)."
Peterson ruled that England's actions crossed the line to "purely private action" when she took part of the victim's remains, and therefore she wasn't acting under the color of law or misusing her official position.
Peterson also denied the plaintiffs' claims that England's actions violated their constitutional rights to bury their loved one's remains "in their integrity and without mutilation."
"A Wisconsin medical examiner's discretion to order autopsies and to retain specimens may not be boundless, but it is extremely broad. Accordingly, a family's right to dispose of the remains of its deceased loved ones is not 'securely and durably' theirs, and thus it does not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest. The court's conclusion is buttressed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's holding that the family's right to the remains of its decedents is not a property right but a 'personal right of the family of the deceased to bury the body.' Id. at 820-21," Peterson wrote.
According to court records, Stenz signed an order Nov. 5 dismissing the state case, since the matter was before the federal court. It is unclear at this time whether the suit will have to be refiled or reopened.
Jamie Taylor may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.