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.

Godfrey v. Harrington

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

May 31, 2013

TOBY GODFREY, #K55828, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD HARRINGTON, MAJOR HANIMYER, LT. HUGHS, OFFICER CAMPBELL, OFFICER KEMPSTER, SERGEANT HEIMAN, SERGEANT ELADVOR, and UNKNOWN MEDICAL DOCTOR, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Toby Godfrey, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend (Doc. 6). Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order seeking medical care was also denied because, without a viable complaint, the Court lacked jurisdiction to award injunctive relief (Doc. 7).

Plaintiff has now filed three documents: "Motion for Amended Complaint" (Doc. 8); "First Amended Complaint/with Exhibits Add" (Doc. 9); and "First Amended Complaint/with Exhibits Add" (Doc. 10). The Court construes these three documents together to constitute an amended complaint. Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Preliminary Injunction" (Doc. 11) is also before the Court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the amended complaint. The motion for injunctive relief will also be addressed in turn.

A. The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's "Motion for Amended Complaint" and an attached list of defendants (Doc. 8, pp. 1-6), read together, contain all allegations of fact and claims asserted. The "First Amended Complaint/with Exhibits Add" (Doc. 9), and "First Amended Complaint/with Exhibits Add" (Doc. 10) contain only exhibits. The following is a synopsis of the factual allegations and claims asserted.

On March 2, 2013, Plaintiff requested that he be moved to a different cell because his cellmate, Julie James, was bullying him-including physical and verbal intimidation, and taking Plaintiff's food and property (Doc. 8, p. 2). Plaintiff reported to Officer Campbell: "James... is trying to bully me and take my property & food, " and Plaintiff asked to be moved to another cell (Doc. 8, p. 3). Campbell told Plaintiff that he did not have authority to move Plaintiff, but that he would speak to Sergeant Eladvor, who supervised housing (Doc. 8, p. 3). Campbell did as promised and Sergeant Eladvor went to Plaintiff's cell to speak with him (Doc. 8, p. 3). Plaintiff reported to Sergeant Eladvor that he and James did not "get along", and that James had been "trying to bully" him (Doc. 8, p. 3). Eladvor indicated that he could not do anything that night, but that the 7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. shift would be notified that Plaintiff was to be moved (Doc. 8, p. 3). However, Plaintiff was not moved the next day (Doc. 8, p. 3).

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff spoke with Officer Kempster and requested that he be moved because his cellmate was "bullying" him and he "feared for his life" (Doc. 8, p. 3). Officer Kempster summoned Sergeant Heiman, who appeared and ordered Julie James to cuff-up (Doc. 8, p. 3). When James refused to comply, Heiman directed Plaintiff to cuff-up (Doc. 8, p. 3). While Plaintiff was cuffed, James assaulted him (Doc. 8, p. 3). Sergeant Heiman used tear gas to break-up the incident and then entered the cell to pull James off of Plaintiff (Doc. 8, pp. 3-4). Sergeant Heiman then took Plaintiff to the Health Care Unit (Doc. 8, p. 4).

An unidentified doctor stitched up a 2 cm laceration on Plaintiff's brow line ( see Doc. 10, p. 4). According to Plaintiff, his jaw and nose were broken, but no x-rays were ordered (Doc. 8, p. 4). Plaintiff attached a list of defendants to the amended complaint and alleged that the unidentified doctor provided "inadequate medical treatment" (Doc. 8, p. 6).

Plaintiff further alleges that he submitted a post-incident grievance to Warden Harrington, but nothing was done (Doc. 8, p. 4). In the list of defendants attached to the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Warden Harrington (who is sued only in his official capacity) was "responsible for [overall] management of Menard, " including answering grievances and ensuring inmate safety ( see Doc. 8, p. 5).

The list of defendants also indicates that Plaintiff asked Major Hanimyer, who is sued in his official capacity, and Lieutenant Hughs, who is sued in his individual capacity, to move Plaintiff from his cell ( see Doc. 8, p. 5).

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, money damages, and injunctive relief.

Based on the claims asserted in the amended complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into five 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: Against Defendants Warden Harrington, Major Hanimyer, Lt. Hughs, Sergeant Eladvor, Sergeant Heiman, Officer Campbell, Officer Kempster, and Unknown Medical Doctor for their failure to protect Plaintiff from harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 2: Against Defendants Warden Harrington, Major Hanimyer, Lt. Hughs, Sergeant Eladvor, Sergeant Heiman, Officer Campbell, Officer Kempster, and Unknown Medical Doctor for depriving Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
Count 3: Against Defendants Warden Harrington, Major Hanimyer, Lt. Hughs, Sergeant Eladvor, Sergeant Heiman, Officer Campbell, Officer Kempster, and Unknown Medical Doctor for denying Plaintiff due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
Count 4: Against Unknown Medical Doctor for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count 5: Against all Defendants for violating Plaintiff's rights under the Illinois constitution.

B. Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

1. The Standard of Review

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening. - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal. - On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of ...

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.