NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 1, 2015*

Decided June 9, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3146

GERALD L. POLZIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PETER ERICKSEN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 13-C-147

Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.

Order

Gerald Polzin contends, in this suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, that Todd Kazik, a guard 

at Polzin’s prison in Wisconsin, tightened his handcuffs so much that he suffered a severe injury to his wrists. The district court dismissed all defendants other than Kazik, 

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60005 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 26, 2013), and after discovery granted summary judgment in Kazik’s favor, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122113 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 29, 2014).

 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 14-3146 Page 2

Polzin contends that, before escorting him to the prison library on August 1, 2010, 

Kazik placed him in tight restraints and rebuffed all requests to loosen them. After 

working in the library for 45 minutes, Polzin located another guard who loosened the 

cuffs. Three days later, Polzin asked for medical attention, complaining about soreness

that has been diagnosed as tendinitis. Polzin blames the handcuffs; Kazik and the other 

defendants submitted medical evidence tending to show that tendinitis is caused by repetitive motions under stress, not by tight restraints. Defendants also observed that Polzin’s medical records show that, when examined, his wrists were not bruised or discolored—which they would have been had the cuffs been as tight as Polzin asserts.

The medical evidence stands unrefuted. The absence of bruises, and the fact that 

tendinitis is not caused by excessive pressure as opposed to repetitive stress, require 

judgment in Kazik’s favor on Polzin’s contention that Kazik violated the Eighth

Amendment by applying unnecessarily tight handcuffs.

Polzin also presents a claim of battery under Wisconsin tort law. The district court 

decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because presentation in state court would 

be untimely, and he rejected the claim on the merits because Kazik did not intend to 

harm Polzin and did not adequately plead a tort claim. These are inadequate reasons.

The applicable statute of limitations is three years. Wis. Stat. §893.57. Polzin filed 

this suit on February 12, 2013, less than three years after the events in question. Raising 

the claims in state court still would be timely, because this suit tolled the period of limitations for the purpose of state law. Wis. Stat. §893.15(3). See Wentzka v. Gellman, 991 

F.2d 423, 426 n.3 (7th Cir. 1993). Decision in federal court thus is unnecessary.

The conclusion that Kazik did not intend to harm Polzin adopts one side of a factual 

dispute, which is inappropriate on summary judgment. Polzin contends that Kazik told 

him that another prisoner had lasted in the library only 15 minutes wearing cuffs that

Kazik had placed; a trier of fact could take this statement (if Kazik made it, which he 

does not concede) as his acknowledgment that he deliberately tightened the cuffs excessively in order to cause pain.

In order to prevail under Wisconsin tort law, Polzin needs to show that Kazik’s 

placement of the cuffs was unprivileged (prison guards and other public-safety officials 

have a qualified privilege to touch unconsenting persons) and caused injury. Wisconsin 

may well use standards different from those the Eighth Amendment establishes, and 

several Wisconsin decisions suggest that even a slight injury (such as embarrassment or 

upset) from an unprivileged touching by a police officer can support an award of damages. See, e.g., Drabek v. Sabley, 142 N.W. 2d 798, 800 (Wis. 1966); Schulze v. Kleeber, 103 
No. 14-3146 Page 3

N.W. 2d 560, 562, 564 (Wis. 1960). Whether that is equally true of prison guards is best 

left to the state judiciary (we could not find a case on the subject).

The district court suggested that the state-law claim is deficient because Polzin cited 

inapt or insufficient legal sources in his complaint. That would not affect pursuit of the 

subject in state court and is in any event incorrect, because federal complaints need not 

cite law or develop legal theories. See Johnson v. Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (2014).

Polzin’s remaining arguments do not require discussion. The judgment on his federal claims is affirmed. The judgment on the state-law claims against Kazik is vacated, 

and the case is remanded with instructions to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).