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.

Johnny M. Ruffin, Jr v. Illinois Department of Corrections

July 25, 2011

JOHNNY M. RUFFIN, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

E-FILED

Monday, 25 July, 2011 03:54:47 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

Before the court are the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [249] of the court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants and the defendants' response [250]. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on September 30, 2010. The plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which allows the Court to correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from an oversight or omission. Plaintiff asserts that the court noted in its order granting summary judgment that plaintiff failed to contest any of the material facts offered by the defendants as undisputed. Plaintiff advises the court this is incorrect and that he did challenge those proposed undisputed facts. The court has reviewed the record and finds that the plaintiff's assertion is correct. Plaintiff's Statement of Contested Facts is docketed as number 233. However, after reviewing and considering the plaintiff's disputes, the court's decision to grant summary judgment does not change.

The plaintiff disputed the following facts offered by the defendants:

7. Defendant Snyder did not receive or review any of Plaintiff's letters or grievances regarding medical care or treatment. (Doc. 179, Exh. B, ¶6).

8. Defendant Snyder did not receive or review any of Plaintiff's letters or grievances regarding retaliation or harassment by employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Doc. 179, Exh. B, ¶7).

9. Defendant Walker did not receive or review any of Plaintiff's letters or grievances regarding violations of the Rehabilitation Act at Lawrence Correctional Center or Pinckneyville Correctional Center. (Doc. 179, Exh. B, ¶8).

10. Defendant Walker did not receive or review any of Plaintiff's letters or grievances regarding medical care or treatment. (Doc. 179, Exh. B, ¶8).

11. Defendant Walker did not receive or review any of Plaintiff's letters or grievances regarding retaliation or harassment by employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Doc. 179, Exh. B, ¶9).

In reply to Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Undisputed Material Facts 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that although Defendants Walker and Snyder may not have received Plaintiff's letters and grievance appeals, Defendants were required by Illinois state law to evaluate grievance appeals. However, 20 Illinois Admin. Code Section 504.805, which sets forth the responsibilities of the Director of the Department of Corrections, "Unless otherwise specified, the Director . . . may delegate responsibilities stated in this Subpart to another person . . . or designate another person . . . to perform the duties specified." 20 Illinois Admin. Code Section 504.805. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot prove, as a matter of law, that Defendants Walker or Snyder had any personal involvement with his claims, as required by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, nor can Plaintiff prove that Defendants Walker or Snyder were required to personally respond or investigate every inmate appeal.

27. Lawrence Correctional Center provides all offenders with equal access to the gym, as well as equal access to available exercise and recreational equipment. (Doc. 179, Exh. S, Boyd Affidavit, ¶3).

30. The Lawrence Correctional Center gyms have no architectural barriers to the weight equipment. The gym is equipped as budgetary and security issues allow. The gym is an open area in all respects and basketballs are available upon offender request at the beginning of the gym period. (Exh. S, ¶5).

31. All offenders at Lawrence Correctional Center are given equal opportunity to attend gym if they are in general population. Those offenders housed in segregation are subject to the policies and procedures relating to segregation. (Exh. S, ¶6).

32. Both disabled and non-disabled inmates were prevented from playing pick-up basketball games by other inmates. (Complaint, p. 13, ¶32).

Plaintiff disputes Defendants' Material Facts 27, 30, 31, and 32, and claims that as a disabled inmate, he was denied equal access to the gym at Lawrence Correctional Center. Plaintiff cites to a Document 144 to support his response, as well as his Exhibit J. Document 144 in this matter was assigned to Defendants' Motion for Enlargement and does not support the plaintiff's statement. He also cites to his affidavit attached to his Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Document In Supporting of his Response to Both IDOC and HPL's Motion For Summary Judgments [216]. Plaintiff's self-serving affidavit disputes that there were no architectural barriers in the Lawrence Correctional Center's gym, in direct contradiction with Defendants' Material Fact number 30, but Plaintiff has not supported his contradiction with any corroborating evidence. Plaintiff also challenges the statement that he was given equal access to the basketball courts at Lawrence Correctional Center, however, Plaintiff's own statement in his complaint demonstrates that all inmates, regardless of disability, were prevented from playing basketball by other inmates, contradicting his argument that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act.

33. When an inmate with a disability is transported out of Lawrence Correctional Center pursuant to a writ, employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections accommodate the inmate's disability while complying with the writ. (Exh. S, ¶7).

36. Defendant Snyder did not deny Plaintiff the use of his prosthetic devices on court writs.

(Exh. A, pp. 32-33).

38. Defendant Walker did not deny Plaintiff the use of his prosthetic devices on court writs. ...


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.