from the State's custody. Therefore, the action was timely
brought against these defendants; it is not barred by the
statute of limitations.
Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity.
Alternatively, they assert that they cannot be held liable
under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Defendants enjoy a qualified immunity. Procunier v.
Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).
That immunity dissolves, however, if defendants knew or should
have known that his actions would violate established
constitutional rights or if his actions were taken with the
impermissible intention of depriving plaintiff of his
constitutional rights. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555,
562, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Wood v.
Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 321-22, 95 S.Ct. 992, 1000-01, 43
L.Ed.2d 214 (1975).
The first test is objective, requiring an analysis of
contemporary constitutional principles. The second is
subjective, requiring an evaluation of defendant's state of
mind or good faith. Perry v. Elrod, 436 F. Supp. 299, 304
The issue of whether the right to adequate treatment and the
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment in this
setting were established principles of constitutional doctrine
at the time of defendant's alleged actions has been decided by
Judge Will. It is, therefore, the law of the case.
The doctrine of the law of the case does not tie the hands
of one district judge to "undo the work of his predecessor in
the same action." Schaefer v. First National Bank of
Lincolnwood, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied,
425 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1682, 48 L.Ed.2d 186 (1976). However,
unless compelling reasons exist for not doing so, which are not
present here,*fn4 the doctrine should be applied. See Chicago
and Northwestern Transportation Co. v. United States,
574 F.2d 926 (7th Cir. 1978).
Judge Will held that since the right to adequate treatment
was not a well-settled constitutional right until 1974,
Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,
417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3138, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974), plaintiff
could not recover money damages for acts alleged to have
occurred before that time. Collins v. Bensinger, 374 F. Supp. 273
(N.D.Ill.), aff'd 506 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 422 U.S. 1058, 95 S.Ct. 2683, 45 L.Ed.2d 710 (1975).
Judge Will also ruled that plaintiff was entitled to seek
compensatory relief based on his Eighth Amendment claims
pertaining to acts that occurred while he was confined in the
Audy Home, Elgin State Hospital and the Chester Mental Health
Defendant Neely also argues that there are no disputed
issues of fact that he acted in good faith and without the
intention to cause a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional
rights. These contentions invoke consideration of the second
prong of the qualified immunity test.