United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Danville
Correctional Center, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need for events that allegedly occurred
during his incarceration at Logan Correctional Center. The
matter comes before this Court for ruling on the Supplemental
Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff and
Defendants Clark and Lercher (Docs. 58, 59, 69), and the
Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Drop Party filed
by Defendant Carter. (Doc. 62).
Carter’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 56) is
retroactively granted. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion,
and Defendant Carter filed the relevant document within the
time frame requested.
Carter filed a motion seeking the Court to drop him as a
party pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 62). Defendant Carter was added as a
defendant in this lawsuit because, at the time, he was the
treating optometrist at Plaintiff’s place of
incarceration and the individual who could ensure that any
injunctive relief was carried out. See Text Order
entered March 14, 2014 (granting Plaintiff’s motion to
add Dr. Carter); Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d
311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (describing proper
defendants where injunctive relief is sought).
Carter is no longer Plaintiff’s treating optometrist.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges in a subsequent motion that he
has since received the eyeglasses he sought through
injunctive relief. (Doc. 69 at 2). Accordingly, because any
claim for injunctive relief is now moot, Defendant
Carter’s motion is granted.
Motions to Strike
March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 69). Defendants Clark and Lercher filed
respective motions to strike Plaintiff’s motion as
untimely. (Docs. 70, 71). By any interpretation,
Plaintiff’s motion was filed well after any dispositive
motion deadline previously set in this case. However,
Plaintiff includes relevant information in his motion that
did not exist prior to the Court’s deadlines.
Defendants’ respective motions to strike are denied.
Plaintiff’s motion is discussed below.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). All facts must be construed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in his favor. Ogden v.
Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In order to be a
“genuine” issue, there must be more than
“some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
relevant times, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Logan
Correctional Center (“Logan”). Defendant Clark
was a nurse at the facility, and Defendant Lercher was the
healthcare administrator. Prior to arriving at the facility,
Plaintiff had been prescribed photochromic (transitions)
lenses to treat his sensitivity to extremely bright lights.
October 26, 2011, Defendant Clark confiscated
Plaintiff’s wire-framed eyeglasses with photochromic
lenses as they violated prison security rules. Prior to
taking the eyeglasses, Defendant Clark confirmed that
Plaintiff had another pair. Plaintiff later requested and
received an appointment with Dr. Davis, an optometrist. Dr.
Davis approved photochromic lenses in a plastic frame on
November 17, 2011. The decision to provide these lenses was
referred to “collegial” review by another
physician on December 23, 2011. On February 9, 2012, Dr.
Davis opted to provide Plaintiff with a “sun shield,
” a thin piece of tinted plastic that ...