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.

White v. Briley

September 26, 2008

DONNIE D. WHITE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KENNETH R. BRILEY, STEPHEN MOTE, ROBERT CATCHINGS, DARRIN HUNTER, MARK HOSEY, KIM MORGAN, LEON VANDIVER, KENNETH AGNEW, CHARLES SHAW, DARRYL EDWARDS, MARTIN PETO, CLARENCE WRIGHT, ANTHONY HARRIS, PHILLIP MARTIN, JEFFREY SAWYER, JIMMIE KING, CALVIN BELL, ROTELL CALMES, ANTHONY SELMON, EDMUND BALDWIN, LESLIE TURNER, JONATHON THOMPSON, DANIEL ARTL, ADEWALE LANGSTON, SHAWNEL GRUBBS, LOUIS BRIICK, GEORGIA SCHONAUER, JOHN ADAMS, JR., DANIELLE TAYLOR AND ANDREW TILDEN, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Donnie D. White, proceeding pro se, has sued defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case is before the Court on two Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 motions for summary judgment, one filed by Andrew Tilden, and the other filed by Kenneth Briley, Stephen Mote, Robert Catchings, Darrin Hunter, Mark Hosey, Kim Morgan, Leon Vandiver, Kenneth Agnew, Charles Shaw, Darryl Edwards, Martin Peto, Clarence Wright, Anthony Harris, Phillip Martin, Jeffrey Sawyer, Jimmie King, Calvin Bell, Rotell Calmes, Anthony Selmon, Edmund Baldwin, Leslie Turner, Jonathan Thompson, Daniel Artl, Adewale Langston, Shawnnel Grubbs, Louis Briick, Georgia Schonauer, John Adams, Jr. and Danielle Taylor (collectively, "Briley Defendants"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part both motions.

Facts*fn1

At all times relevant to this suit, plaintiff was an inmate at the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC's") Stateville facility, and defendants worked there in various capacities: Briley was the warden; Mote and Catchings were assistant wardens; Hunter and Hosey were superintendents; Vandiver, Agnew, Shaw and Morgan were captains; Edwards, Peto, Wright, Harris, Martin, Sawyer and King were lieutenants; Bell, Calmes, Selmon and Baldwin were sergeants; Turner, Thompson, Artl, Langston and Grubbs were correctional officers; Briick was a correctional counselor; Schonauer was a correctional casework supervisor; Taylor and Adams were correctional medical technicians ("CMTs"); and Tilden was a staff physician. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts Local Rule 56.1(a)(1) filing ("Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts") ¶¶ 1-30; Pl.'s Local Rule Resp. Def.'s Stmt. Material Facts ("Pl.'s Resp. Tilden's Facts") ¶ 4.*fn2

On May 5, 2002, plaintiff threw soap and water on a correctional officer who is not a defendant in this case. (Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶ 9.) Consequently, defendants Sawyer and Martin went to plaintiff's cell and told him to "cuff up," i.e., present his hands for handcuffing, so they could take him to disciplinary segregation. (Id. ¶ 12.) When plaintiff refused their order, Sawyer and Martin left the unit, and a TACT team was assembled to extract plaintiff from his cell. (Tilden's Stmt. Material Facts, Ex. E, Pl.'s Dep. ("Pl.'s Dep.") at 35-36; Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶ 13.)

The TACT team consisted of defendants Artl, King, Calmes, Turner, Grubbs, Langston and Thompson, who videotaped the extraction. (Pl.'s Dep. at 115, 118-22.) The videotape shows that plaintiff's mattress was propped against his cell door when the TACT team arrived. (Id. at 122; Briley Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Stmt. Uncontested Facts, Ex. E, Videotape 5/5/02 Cell Extraction ("Video"); Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶ 14.) Artl ordered plaintiff to "cuff up" three times, orders that plaintiff ignored. (Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶¶ 14-15; see Video). Artl then tried to enter plaintiff's cell but backed out when plaintiff swung at him with a knife. (Pl.'s Dep. at 48-56; see Video.) The TACT officers told plaintiff they would use a chemical agent if he did not comply with their orders. (Id.) Plaintiff did not comply, so the officers sprayed a chemical agent into his cell and then entered it. (Id.)

Plaintiff claims that, when they entered, Turner hit him with "a stick." (Pl.'s Dep. at 56-57.) The blow caused plaintiff to fall onto the toilet, but he kept control of the knife. (Id. at 57-62.) The officers moved plaintiff from the toilet to the floor, at which point plaintiff lost the knife. (Id. at 64.) Though plaintiff denies it, Artl, Grubbs and Langston claim that he stabbed them before he lost the knife. (Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶ 18.) Once he was on the floor, plaintiff says, the officers "beat [him] down." (Pl.'s Dep. at 65-68.)

Once plaintiff was subdued, the TACT officers cuffed his hands, put him in a headlock, which plaintiff says made him "slightly pass[] out," and walked him down the stairs. (Id. at 71, 73-75; see Video.) The officers took plaintiff to the day room and, as the videotape shows, removed the layers of clothing plaintiff had put on before they came to get him. (Id. at 76-77; Video.)

Afterwards, the officers took plaintiff to a shower, which was a feet away, to wash off the chemical agent. (Pl.'s Dep. at 78.) When he was in the shower, defendant Taylor arrived. (Id. at 76.) Plaintiff says he told her that he was injured, but she did nothing but tell him to sign up for sick call. (Id.) Taylor claims she flushed his eyes with water, rinsed the chemical agent off him and saw no evidence that he was injured. (Briley Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶¶ 33-37.)

Subsequently, the TACT officers put plaintiff in a strip cell in the close supervision segregation unit ("1A wing"). (Pl.'s Dep. at 81; Briley Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. I, Wright Aff. ("Wright Aff.") ¶¶ 5-6.) Inmates in those cells are not given mattresses or prison clothing. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) But defendants say they are given a paper gown to wear, and are evaluated after forty-eight hours to determine if they can go back into the general prison population. (Id. ¶¶ 6-9.)

Plaintiff says defendants put him in a cell on 1A wing without any clothes at all, in his words, "asshole naked." (Pl.'s Dep. at 81.) Further, he says the cell was extremely cold because it had a broken window, and neither the sink nor toilet had water. (Id. at 81-82, 91, 141, 145.)

On May 16, 2002, eleven days after plaintiff was put on 1A wing, Wright and Harris moved him to a new cell on that wing, a process observed by Agnew. (Id. at 88-90.) Plaintiff says the toilet and sink in the new cell did not work either, and sewage was leaking into the cell from a nearby pipe. (Id. at 146-48.) Plaintiff also claims that, during the move, he asked Wright, Harris, Agnew and Bell for clothes and medical care, but his requests were ignored. (Id. at 88-90, 110-11.)

According to plaintiff, on May 19, 2002, Hosey and Morgan shook down his new cell and made him stand in sewage throughout the twenty-five minute process. (Pl.'s Resp. Briley Defs.' Facts ¶¶ 6, 10.) Moreover, plaintiff says both men refused to give him clothing, bedding, cleaning supplies or medical care. (Id.)

On May 30, 2002, twenty-five days after the extraction, plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary for observation because he was exhibiting anti-social behavior. (Pl.'s Resp. Tilden's Stmt. Facts ¶ 11.) Tilden says Dr. Ngu, a non-party, examined plaintiff when he was admitted and saw no signs of injury. (Tilden's Stmt. Material Facts, Ex. D, Ngu Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff says he was never examined by Ngu and, if any records reflect that he was, they are false. (Pl.'s Resp. Tilden's Facts ¶¶ 12-13.)

On May 31, 2002, plaintiff was examined by Tilden, who diagnosed plaintiff with constipation. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff admits that constipation was the recorded diagnosis, but says he told Tilden he had been beaten during the cell extraction and, as a result, "had a knot on [his] head. . . . [b]ad headaches" and episodes of blurred vision. (Id. ¶ 18; Pl.'s Dep. at 130-32.) Plaintiff also claims that he showed Tilden bruises and other marks from the beating that remained on his body. (Pl.'s Dep. at 130-32.) Moreover, plaintiff says Tilden told him he would get Motrin for pain and would be scheduled for x-rays. (Id. at 131.)

According to defendants, on June 1, 2002, plaintiff was again examined by Ngu, who noted that plaintiff appeared clean and calm and moved about his cell normally. (Tilden's Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 21.) Plaintiff denies that Ngu examined him. (Pl.'s Resp. Tilden's Facts ¶ 21.)

Discussion

Summary judgment is proper when the "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits [must] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). At this stage, we do not weigh evidence or determine the truth of the matters asserted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). We view all evidence and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. ...


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.