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 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. [d/e 32].
The plaintiff, Jackie Wilson, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that their constitutional rights were violated at the Pontiac Correctional Center. The plaintiff named eight defendants including Medical Technician Mary Beta O'Connell, Warden Stephen Mote, Officers Richard Allen, Teri Kennedy, Kelley Miller, Danny McFarlen, Ronald Helander and Jacon Allen. After merit review, the court found that the plaintiff's had adequately alleged that:
1) Defendants O'Connell, Mote, Allen, Kennedy, Miller, McFarlen, Heland and Allen were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
2) Defendants Kennedy, Allen, Miller, McFarlen, Helander and Allen violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they refused to take action after the plaintiff told them about his cell conditions.
The claims are against the defendants in their individual capacities only.
The plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment that addresses only the first count of his complaint.
The plaintiff was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center during the events alleged in his complaint. The plaintiff claims that he is a nudist and has been a nudist within the Illinois Department of Corrections for 22 years without any problems receiving medical care. However, the plaintiff alleges that on July 13, 2004 to July 24, 2004, he was refused medical attention for "pain and swelling of his penis." (Comp, p. 6) The plaintiff says he was finally seen on July 25, 2004 by a doctor and was taken to a local hospital for treatment.
The defendants dispute that the plaintiff asked for medical care each day between July 13, 2004 and July 24, 2004. The defendants state that the only time the plaintiff was refused medical treatment was when he refused to follow orders to put clothes on before a medical technician entered his cell. "Corrections Medical Technicians are not required to assess an offender, in a non-emergency situation, who refuses to dress appropriately when given the opportunity to do so." (Def. Resp., p. 4, O'Connell Aff., para.6).
The entry of summary judgment is proper only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine only if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Id.
A party moving for summary judgment initially has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact based on the evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153 (1970); Schroeder v. Barth, Inc., 969 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 1992). A nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must demonstrate that there is admissible evidence that will support its position. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 23 F.3d 174, 178 (7th Cir. 1994). The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nonetheless, "(s)ummary ...