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.

Jon White, #R69891 v. Warden Atchison

August 17, 2012

JON WHITE, #R69891, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN ATCHISON, OFFICER LINDBERGH, OFFICER ANTHONY, FITZGERALD, MEYER, MAYBERRY, MCKAMICK, LIEUTENANT LASHBROOK, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac"), has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that took place while he was confined at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard").

The following is an overview of the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). Defendant Fitzgerald*fn1 told another inmate that Plaintiff was a child molester; as a result, two inmates verbally threatened Plaintiff. Defendant McKamick then witnessed one of those inmates hit Plaintiff in the head with a "soap sock," yet refused to move Plaintiff away from that inmate. Plaintiff made a written request for protection, but an unknown correctional officer gave Plaintiff's letter to one of the inmates who made the threats.

Defendants Lindbergh, Anthony and Fitzgerald put Plaintiff in a cell with one of the inmates who they knew had threatened Plaintiff, and they watched as this inmate beat Plaintiff, running away when Plaintiff yelled for them to remove him from the cell. This inmate later sexually assaulted Plaintiff.

Defendants Atchison and Lashbrook were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs for treatment following the assault, and conspired to cover up the incident. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Mayberry and Meyer failed to protect him, and that all Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into four counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.

Count 1 -- Endangerment and Failure to Protect

A. Defendant McKamick

Defendant McKamick refused to move Plaintiff away from an inmate who attacked him despite having witnessed the attack. It is not clear whether McKamick knew there was a substantial risk that the inmate would attack Plaintiff prior to the soap sock attack. Further, Plaintiff does not indicate which of the two inmates who threatened him hit Plaintiff with the soap sock, and which inmate later beat and assaulted Plaintiff. Because it is possible that the second, more serious attack was perpetrated by the same inmate who hit Plaintiff with the soap sock, Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed on his failure to protect claim against Defendant McKamick.

B. Defendants Lindbergh, Anthony, and Fitzgerald

Defendants Lindbergh, Anthony, and Fitzgerald, despite Plaintiff's protests about the danger he would face, put Plaintiff in a cell with an inmate who had threatened him. They then watched as Plaintiff was beaten, refused to move Plaintiff, and left him in the cell to be assaulted again. Plaintiff's claim that Defendants Lindbergh, Anthony, and Fitzgerald instigated the assault on him shall be allowed to proceed.

C. Defendant John Doe

Plaintiff claims that John Doe gave Plaintiff's letter listing certain inmates as enemies and requesting protection, which was intended for Plaintiff's counselors and mental health specialist, to an inmate who had threatened Plaintiff. Should Plaintiff be able to determine the identity of this ...


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.