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.

Wilborn v. Ealey

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

June 13, 2013

JOSEPH WILBORN, No. R-17937, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID EALEY, WILLIAM JOHNSON, BENNETT, LLOYD, MR. HENRY, OFFICER STARKWEATHER, A. WALTER, REES, SORT TEAM DRIVERS, TAC TEAM, SHELBY DUNN, LAKEISHA HAMBY, CHRISTOPHER PHEMISTER, and OTHER UNKNOWN STAFF, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff Joseph Wilborn, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pertaining to events at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard") and Tamms Correctional Center ("Tamms").[1] Plaintiff contends that after prison officials at Menard severely beat him in July 2011, rather than providing him with medical care for his injuries, they transported him overnight to Tamms, where he was denied care and retaliated against in various ways for more than a year. The original complaint enumerated nine separate claims (Doc. 13). By Order dated February 20, 2013 (Doc. 23), Counts 1-6 were permitted to proceed, while Counts 7-9 were severed into three new cases, pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff was given the opportunity to opt out of the newly severed cases, each of which would require an additional $350.00 filing fee to be paid. Because Plaintiff had paid the initial filing fee for the present action, he was directed to show cause why he should not bear the costs of service of summons and the complaint upon the defendants (Doc. 33).

Plaintiff is now before the Court seeking reconsideration of the severance decision (Docs. 24, 35). He is also attempting to secure pauper status for purposes of having service of process effected by the United States Marshal at government expense (Docs. 25, 32). Each issue will be addressed in turn.

1. Current Procedural Posture

At this juncture, Plaintiff's nine claims stand as follows:

Wilborn v. Shicker, et al., No. 13-cv-00070-JPG (the present case)

Count 1: Against Menard correctional officers Johnson, Bennett, Lloyd, Ealey, Starkweather, Henry and unknown staff for subjecting Plaintiff to excessive force-beating him and spraying mace in his face, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 2: Against Major Rees and other unknown officials who exhibited deliberate indifference when they watched Plaintiff being attacked and failed to intervene, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 3: Against Defendants Johnson, Bennett, Lloyd, Ealey, Starkweather, Henry, Rees, unknown staff, and Nurse Walters for their deliberate indifference in failing to get Plaintiff medical care for his injuries, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 4: Against Defendants Johnson, Bennett, Lloyd, Ealey, Starkweather, Henry, Rees and unknown staff for beating Plaintiff and/or transferring him to Tamms in retaliation for "complaining, " and in an effort to stop Plaintiff from complaining about the beating, all in violation of the First Amendment;
Count 5: Against "two Tamms Sort Drivers" who transported Plaintiff to Tamms, and those who first encountered Plaintiff upon his arrival- the "Tamms Tac Team, " Nurse Dunn, Nurse Hamby, and two unidentified officers-for their deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count 6: Against C/O Phemister for denying Plaintiff food and drink on multiple occasions in retaliation for the events at Menard and for complaining about his treatment, in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilborn v. Shicker, et al., No. 13-cv-00176-MJR
(Pauper status granted; case pending)
Count 7: Against, the Medical Director for the Illinois Department of Corrections, Louis Shicker, and Tamms Medical Director Dr. Powers, and Health Care Unit Administrator Vinyard, for their deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they ...

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.