Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Willie Williams, #A-73359 v. David Raines

August 15, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge


Plaintiff Willie Williams, an inmate currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff's factual allegations are as follows. Plaintiff was transferred to Robinson from Jacksonville Correctional Center where a doctor had designated him "medically unassigned," relieving him of any work obligations, because he had suffered a stroke. Upon Plaintiff's arrival at Robinson, he was examined by the medical staff and again ordered to be medically unassigned. The medical order was sent to department heads, including David Raines. Raines is responsible for overseeing all job assignments at Robinson. Raines informed Plaintiff that he was not going to honor the medical order and that Plaintiff would be given a job assignment. On July 16, 2011, Raines sent Plaintiff a memorandum informing him that he was being assigned to the dietary department. On July 17, while at work, Plaintiff collapsed and sustained a serious injury to the right side of his head. He was examined by a doctor on the following day and was removed from the work detail.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff paid the filing fee in full on October 3, 2011. Nonetheless, the Court must employ § 1915A's screening mechanism to "all suits by prisoners, whether or not they seek to proceed in forma pauperis." Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002).

Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that he has articulated a colorable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. As the United States Supreme Court instructed in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976),

We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05 (internal citation omitted). So, a prison official may act with deliberate indifference if he ignores a doctor's instructions for the inmate's care. Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1040 (7th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference might be shown if prison staff intentionally interfered with prescribed treatment).

Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant Raines was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he did not follow the doctor's instructions that Plaintiff should be relieved from work duties. Plaintiff's complaint will proceed against Raines.


In summary,this action proceeds against Defendant Raines on Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Raines: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant's place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If Defendant no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, Defendant's last-known address. This information will be used only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address will be retained only by the Clerk. Address information will not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date on which a true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendant or counsel. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.

Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the complaint and shall not waive filing a reply ...

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.