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.

Lilly v. Smith

June 25, 2007

GREGORY L. LILLY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILL SMITH, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS



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

ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. [d/e 27]. The plaintiff was notified that a dispositive motion was filed, but he has failed to file any response. [d/e 28]

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed his lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against five defendants at the Peoria County Jail including: Officers Will Smith, Hauk and Widger and Sergeants Cox and Jones. On November 14, 2006, the court conducted a merit review of the plaintiff's complaint and found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the defendants had violated his Eighth constitutional rights by the use of excessive force, the failure to protect the plaintiff from the use of excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment. The claims are against the defendants in their individual capacities only.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that on December 18, 2003, the defendants beat him about the head and body. The defendants then strapped him to a chair and left him in the chair from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day.

The court noted that it was unclear from the complaint whether the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the allegations in his complaint. Therefore, it was unclear whether the plaintiff was protected by the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See November 14, 2006 Court Order.

II. FACTS

The plaintiff did not respond to the defendants' statement of facts, so the following facts are taken from the defendants' motion and exhibits.

The plaintiff was an inmate at the Peoria County Jail on December 18, 2003. On this day, the plaintiff was put in a restraint chair.

Jail Superintendent Steve Smith says there is a grievance procedure at the jail that was available to the plaintiff. If an inmate receives a response to a complaint that is not satisfactory, the plaintiff must next appeal the response to the Jail Superintendent. The grievance procedure stated that the appeals must be in writing and on an Inmate Request Form.

The plaintiff made a complaint to the Assistant Correctional Superintendent on January 5, 2004. The complaint states that the plaintiff still has no feeling in one of his hands after being strapped in the restraint chair. Rob McCoy provided an immediate response. Jail Superintendent Smith says the plaintiff did not appeal that decision.

The defendants are asking the court to grant their motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim that he was strapped to a restraint chair.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

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. 56C. A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 ...


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.