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.

Mitts v. Martin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 29, 2016

JOECEPHUS MITTS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. PHIL MARTIN, DR. HECTOR GARCIA, STEPHEN DUNCAN, JOHN COE, RANDALL BAYLOR, BRADLEY RUE, THOMAS SIMMONS, and JOHN DOE 1, Defendants.

          Joecephus Mitts, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Dr Phil Martin, Defendant, represented by Christine M. McClimans, Attorney General's Office.

          Dr Hector Garcia, Defendant, represented by Timothy P. Dugan, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Carla G. Tolbert, Sandberg, Phoenix et al..

          Stephen Duncan, Defendant, represented by Christine M. McClimans, Attorney General's Office.

          John Coe, Defendant, represented by Timothy P. Dugan, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Carla G. Tolbert, Sandberg, Phoenix et al..

          Randall Baylor, Defendant, represented by Christine M. McClimans, Attorney General's Office.

          Bradley Rue, Defendant, represented by Christine M. McClimans, Attorney General's Office.

          Thomas Simmons, Defendant, represented by Christine M. McClimans, Attorney General's Office.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

         This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 42). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be DENIED, and that the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         Plaintiff Joecephus Mitts, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"). More specifically, Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter on a deliberate indifference claim against four defendants, Drs. Hector Garcia and John Coe, the Lawrence Healthcare Administrator Dr. Phil Martin, and Lawrence Warden Stephen Duncan. Plaintiff claims that these Defendants failed to adequately treat his serious medical condition - mycosis fungoides, a type of cancer known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that affects his skin ( see Doc. 5, p. 1). Plaintiff is also proceeding on an Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to intervene claim against four defendants, Randall Baylor, Bradley Rue, Thomas Simmons, and John Doe, for allegedly assaulting Plaintiff in the healthcare unit on May 14, 2014 ( see Docs. 47 and 48).

         Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction asserting that the medical defendants delayed and/or denied treatment for his medical condition. Said motion was denied by District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on March 29, 2016 (Doc. 63). While his first motion for TRO and preliminary injunction was pending, Plaintiff filed the motion now before the Court captioned "Motion to Amended [sic] Preliminary Injunction and TRO", which the Court construes as an Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (Doc. 42). In this motion, Plaintiff asserts that a correctional officer-defendant in this action who goes by the nickname "Zeze" passed out lunch trays on January 21, 2016 and Plaintiff's tray was missing tomatoes. When Plaintiff asked Officer Zeze why his tray was missing tomatoes, Officer Zeze told Plaintiff that "he don't [sic] care about Plaintiff[s] civil complaint" and indicated the officers have a "strong union" and Plaintiff "better watch his back" (Doc. 42, p. 2). Prior to this incident, Plaintiff avers that he was told by Lieutenant Freeman that the officers who allegedly assaulted him would be kept away from Plaintiff, but the January, 2016 incident reflects ongoing harassment and ...


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.