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.

Maurice Wallace v. Yolande Johnson

August 13, 2012

MAURICE WALLACE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
YOLANDE JOHNSON,
KENNETH BARTLEY,
MARVIN POWERS,
TERRY CALIPER, AND JESSE HELD, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Maurice Wallace is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, housed at Tamms Correctional Center. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wallace has filed suit against prison officials and medical personnel for violating his constitutional rights. At this time, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) controls. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant Marvin Powers moves to dismiss the claims lodged against him, arguing that Wallace has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Doc. 41).

The following claims remain:

Count 1:That, from June 2007 and for approximately seven months, Powers (a doctor at Illinois' Tamms Correctional Center) was deliberately indifferent to Wallace's painfully infected foot ulcer, infected toenail, dermatitis, athlete's foot, hypertrophied toe, and ingrown toenail, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 3:That, in violation of the First Amendment,

(a) in retaliation to Wallace's practice of Satmar Hasidic Judaism:

(i) Defendant Powers retaliated against Wallace via the aforementioned deliberate indifference, and

(ii) Defendant Held (formerly Tamms' clothing room supervisor) retaliated against Wallace by refusing him adequate linens and clothing from August 2007 through January 2009, and again from December 2010 to March 2011, and falsified the records of Wallace's clothing requests; and

(b)in retaliation for Wallace filing administrative grievances, Defendant Caliper approved an antibiotic prescription for Wallace despite knowing him to be allergic to the medication; and

(c)Defendants Bartley and Johnson (both former Tamms wardens) directed and consented to the actions perpetrated by Powers, Held, and Caliper.

Powers contends that the claims asserted against him were decided in Wallace v. Powers, No. 09-cv-0224-DRH (Doc. 19), 2009 WL 4015558 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2009), and are thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion).

Defendant Powers' motion to dismiss was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Before the Court is Judge Williams' report (Doc. 83) recommending that: (1) Defendant Powers' motion to dismiss (Doc. 41) be granted; (2) Plaintiff Maurice Wallace's motion for leave to amend the complaint to omit all claims against Defendant Powers (Doc. 43) be deemed moot; and (3) Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to again include claims against Defendant Powers (Doc. 48) be denied. Plaintiff Wallace has objected to Judge Williams' recommendation "in its entirety" (Doc. 85). Wallace also moves to amend his complaint (Docs. 43 and 48), conceding that the current claims are barred by res judicata, but asserting that the proposed new claims in his "Revised Third Amended Complaint" fall outside of the time period addressed in Wallace v. Powers, No. 09-cv-0224-DRH (Doc. 85, pp. 3-7). Defendant Powers has not filed an objection to Judge Williams' report and recommendation, nor has Powers filed a reply to Wallace's objection.

Because Wallace filed a timely objection to Judge Williams' report and recommendation, the Court will undertake de novo review of the portions of the Report to which specific objection was made. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 73.1(b); Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge 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.