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.

Kyles v. Mathy

August 2, 2010

TIMOTHY KYLES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH MATHY, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS



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 Defendant Mahone's Motion for Summary Judgment [d/e 44] and Defendants Baughman, Griswold, Hardy, Kennell, Mathy and Runyon's Motion for Summary Judgment. [d/e 75]

Defendant Mahone has filed a motion to supplement her motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust. [d/e 56] The defendant says the plaintiff's subsequent discovery responses provide additional relevant evidence. The motion is granted. Defendant Mahone has also filed a motion to correct her Motion for Summary Judgment. [d/e 67] The motion pertains to exhaustion of administrative remedies, but the defendant inadvertently made reference to the wrong medical condition (Hepatitis C) in the body of her motion. The motion to correct is granted. The plaintiff's motion for additional time to file a response to the dispostive motion is granted [d/e 59] and the court notes that the plaintiff has now filed several responses.

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against seven defendants at the Pontiac Correctional Center including: Warden Joseph Mathy, Assistant Warden Marcus Hardy, Chaplain Eldon Kennell, Food Service Manager Richard Runyon, Food Supervisor Chris Baughman, Food Service Administrator Suzanne Griswold and Medical Director Sylvia Mahone.

After merit review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, the court found that the plaintiff had the following surviving claims:

1) Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell, Runyon, Baughman and Griswold violated the plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion when he was denied his approved religious diet;

2) Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell, Runyon, Baughman and Griswold violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when the plaintiff was denied an approved religious diet;

3) Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell, Runyon, Baughman and Griswold violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when the plaintiff was not provided a nutritionally adequate diet for approximately 39 days which resulted in health problems and weight loss; and,

4) Defendant Mahone violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when she was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition.

II. FACTS

The plaintiff did not directly respond to the defendants' statement of undisputed facts. Therefore, the following facts are taking form the exhibits submitted by the parties:

The Illinois Department of Correction's Grievance Procedures For Offenders states that the grievance officer must consider the inmate's grievance and report his findings and recommendations to the Warden. The Warden "shall advise the offender of the decision in writing within 2 months after receipt of the written grievance, where reasonably feasible under the circumstances." 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.830(d)

On September 22, 2008, the plaintiff submitted a grievance concerning his diet. The plaintiff said when he was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center he stopped receiving his approved religious diet. (Def. Mot, 9-22-08 Griev.) The plaintiff claimed he complained to Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell, Runyon, his counselor and medical staff. The plaintiff further stated that he suffered massive weight loss as a result.

The plaintiff received a response from Counselor Guth on October 3, 2008 which stated that Chaplain Kennell had notified the dietary department to start issuing his religious diet.

On September 30, 2008, the plaintiff apparently submitted a second grievance concerning his diet. In this grievance, the plaintiff said he was not receiving his approved religious diet and although he had complained to various individuals, they had not done anything to correct the situation. The plaintiff received the same response on ...


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.