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.

Strickland v. Mote

August 29, 2006

LARRY STRICKLAND, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEPHEN D. MOTE, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendant's motions for summary judgment. [d/e 70].

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, Larry Strickland, originally brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated at the Pontiac Correctional Center. The plaintiff has the following surviving claims against the defendants in their individual capacities:

1) Defendants Hendrickson, Altenbaumer, Hall, Spencer, Boase, Beard, Parsano, Schnicker, Gabor, Miller, Moore, Schurthesis and Keith violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they gave him contaminated food trays;

2) Defendants Beaupre and Hall violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to protect him from inmate sexual assaults;

3) Defendant Altenbaumer violated the plaintiff's First Amendment right of meaningful access to the courts when he interfered with the plaintiff's legal mail and caused a complaint to be dismissed;

4) Defendant Hendrickson gave the plaintiff contaminated food in retaliation for the plaintiff's refusal to participate in a sexual relationship with the plaintiff;

5) Defendants Spencer, Beaupre, Harvey and Young each used excessive force against the plaintiff in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights;

6) Food Supervisor Runyon did not provide the plaintiff with nutritionally adequate food; and

7) Defendants Gish and Mote were informed about the above conduct of the named correctional officers and took no steps to stop it.

The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment [d/e 70] and the plaintiff has filed a response. [d/e 73]. On June 19, 2006, the court noted that the defendants' motion contained hundreds of pages of medical records, and inappropriately asked the court to interpret the medical jargon and handwriting. The court ordered the defendants to provide an affidavit from a medical professional who was familiar with the plaintiff and his care. The doctor was to examine the medical records and inform the court: 1) whether there was any physical indication that the plaintiff receive contaminated food during the relevant time periods and 2) whether there was any physical indication or verbal notification that the plaintiff had been sexually assaulted during the relevant time periods. The plaintiff was also given additional time to file a response to this affidavit.

The defendants have now provided an affidavit from the Illinois Department of Corrections Medical Director Dr. Elyea. [d/e 78]. The plaintiff has also filed a response to this affidavit .[d/e 50]. The motion, affidavit and both responses will be considered by the court.

II. FACTS

The plaintiff did not respond to the defendants' statement of undisputed facts. The following facts are taken from the dispositive motion, the ...


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.