Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LESLIE v. DOYLE

November 23, 1994

KEITH LESLIE, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM DOYLE, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON I. SHADUR

 Joliet Correctional Center ("Joliet") inmate Keith Leslie ("Leslie") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. ┬ž 1983 ("Section 1983"), contending that three Illinois Department of Corrections employees violated his Eighth Amendment *fn1" right against cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. All defendants have moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, their motion is granted in principal part and denied as to the remainder.

 Procedural Background

 Leslie tendered his initial Complaint (including several exhibits) pro se, describing unrelated run-ins with Superintendent William Doyle ("Doyle") at Joliet on May 24, 1993 and with Health Care Unit Administrator Marlene Guthrie ("Guthrie") at Hill Correctional Center ("Hill") in early August 1993. After this Court conducted its customary threshold review for non-"frivolousness" in the legal sense defined in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989) and refined in Denton v. Hernandez, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733-34 (1992), it granted leave to file the Complaint in forma pauperis and appointed counsel to represent Leslie.

 Appointed counsel then prepared, and this Court granted leave to file, a Verified and Amended Complaint ("AC") that added a third defendant, Hill's Chief Administrative Officer Jerry Gilmore ("Gilmore"), and set out four counts bearing these labels:

 I. Cruel and Unusual Punishment as to Doyle;

 II. Substantive Due Process as to Doyle;

 III. Cruel and Unusual Punishment as to Guthrie and Gilmore; and

 IV. Deprivation of Personal Property as to Guthrie and Gilmore.

 Although the AC did not physically attach a set of the exhibits that had accompanied the original Complaint, it referred to (AC PP 24, 33, 46) and quoted from (AC PP 25, 27, 29, 35-36, 53-54) those documents. They may be considered in deciding the motion to dismiss ( Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Group, Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 739 n.12 (7th Cir. 1986); Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 622 F. Supp. 1397, 1402-03 (N.D.Ill. 1985); cf. Venture Assoc. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)), and this Court has done so.

 One of Leslie's sets of claims arises out of the facts that on May 24, 1993 Doyle placed Leslie in segregation "for absolutely no reason at all" *fn3" and then filed a false disciplinary report charging Leslie with dangerous disturbance, insolence, disobeying a direct order and assault. On May 28 Leslie appeared before the Adjustment Committee and was found guilty of insolence and disobeying a direct order and committed to 15 days' segregation with credit for time served. Leslie spent the 15 days in segregation. In July 1993 Leslie filed a grievance report that resulted in the expunction of the disciplinary report and in his receiving $ 5.10 in compensation.

 Leslie's other claims are predicated on events stemming from the fact that his left leg is paralyzed from the knee down. Despite that physical impairment Leslie was able to function as a prison porter and play a form of basketball. On August 2, 1993 Leslie was in the Hill gym shooting free throws. Word got back to Guthrie, who had Leslie's personal cane confiscated. Next day Leslie was provided with a replacement cane from the prison stores.

 Later in August Guthrie and Gilmore placed Leslie on sports restriction, a status that he occupied on-and-off for approximately two months. While on restriction Leslie could not shoot baskets, play in the yard or use exercise machines located in the prison gym.

 Leslie filed several grievance reports in an effort to have his personal cane returned and to obtain a property slip authorizing him to keep it. Though Leslie's own cane was ultimately returned to him on an unspecified date, no property slip has been issued.

 Count I

 Leslie first claims that Doyle subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by placing him in segregation for no reason at all. Even with the benefit of favorable inferences, that claim fails ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.