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.

Santiago v. Walker

September 8, 2008

FABIAN SANTIAGO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER WALKER, DEFENDANT.



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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's response. [d/e 110].

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se plaintiff brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983 claiming that defendants at the Pontiac Correctional Center violated his constitutional rights. The plaintiff's 23 surviving defendants include Roger Walker, Sherry Hile-Benton, Stephen Mote, Patrick Hastings, Jennifer Melvin, Carrie Melvin, Michael Melvin, Katina Levingston, Nancy Osman, Mark Spencer, Paula Rich, Sharon Eden, Lex McBurney, Wesley Wiles, Delector Kennedy, Emily Ruskin, Marge Heg, Timothy Potts, Correy Wilson, Les Amdore, Christian Paul, Stewart Penoyer and Mark McNabb. The plaintiff's surviving claims include:

1) the defendants violated his First Amendment rights when they repeatedly interfered with grievances by refusing to make copies, refusing to respond, failing to forward or destroying them in retaliation for the plaintiff's previous grievances or lawsuits;

2) the defendants violated the plaintiff's right to meaningful access to the courts under the First Amendment when they interfered with the plaintiff's grievances;

3) the defendants violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights when they repeatedly interfered with his outgoing mail in retaliation for previous lawsuits and grievances; and

4) the defendants violated the plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment rights based on repeated delays and/or tampering and/or censoring of his outgoing mail.

The claims are against the defendants in their individual and official capacities.

The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. [d/e 110]. The court found that the plaintiff's initial response to the motion was inadequate. [d/e 116]. Since the plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the court gave the plaintiff additional time and directions for filing a response. See November 28, 2007 Court Order. The plaintiff has now filed a supplemental response. [d/e 119]

II. FACTS

The plaintiff did not directly respond to the defendants' statement of undisputed facts. Therefore, the following facts are taken from the motion for summary judgment, the response and the attached exhibits.

The plaintiff was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center during the relevant time periods of his complaint. The defendants have provided copies of grievances filed by the plaintiff on the following dates:

August 24, 2003 March 15, 2004 June 25, 2004 September 26, 2003 March 22, 2004 June 29, 2004- 2 grievances October 10, 2003 May 7, 2004 July 16, 2004 December 29, 2003 June 2, 2004 July 28, 2004.

Each of these grievances show the plaintiff did receive a response from a grievance officer and a counselor. The plaintiff appealed most to the Administrative Review Board and received a response.

Defendant Les Amdor is a correctional counselor and was a member of the Publications Review Committee at Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant Amdor says he did not have any involvement with ...


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.