United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Sangamon
County Jail, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging failure-to-protect from harm and
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The matter
comes before this Court for ruling on the Defendants'
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 55). The motion is
Order entered September 15, 2015, the Court denied
Defendants' original motion for summary judgment because
the record did not disclose that the Defendants had complied
with the Court's Merit Review Opinion (Doc. 4) regarding
disclosure of the identities of the Doe defendants. On the
record then presented to the Court, at least one potential
defendant had not been identified, and records to that end
appeared readily available. Defendants have since provided
the relevant information.
filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc.
57). Leave to amend should be freely granted “when
justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). A district
court, however, may refuse to grant leave to amend where
there has been “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to impose
liability on several additional jail officials for the events
surrounding an attack he suffered at the hands of another
inmate. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Durr,
Strayer, and Williamson failed to override his cell block
assignment, that other jail officials failed to adequately
respond to the attack, and that jail officials refused to get
him a wheelchair when he was taken to the hospital. For the
reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
amendment would be futile. Therefore, Plaintiff motion is
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).
was booked into the Sangamon County Jail (“jail”)
on January 30, 2013 after his arrest for murder and other
charges. Upon arrival, Plaintiff was housed in the booking
area of the jail. Jail officials asked Plaintiff a series of
questions on a range of topics including mental
health/medical history, gang affiliation, prior criminal
history, and known enemies within the facility. (Doc. 32-1 at
1-7). According to booking records, Plaintiff denied that he
was receiving care for mental health issues, denied that he
had any enemies, and the officer conducting the interview
noted that Plaintiff did not exhibit any visible signs of
distress. Plaintiff did not have any person listed as a
“keep separate from” at that time. Plaintiff was
assigned to D-block on January 31, 2013. He arrived there at
6:16 p.m. (Doc. 46-2 at 1).
p.m., another inmate assaulted Plaintiff in Plaintiff's
cell. From the time he entered D-block until the time of the
assault, Plaintiff testified that he did not have any
problems with any other inmates. Pl.'s Dep. 55:22-56:2.
Plaintiff did not know who his assailant was prior to the
attack. Id. 35:8-11. A video Defendants provided
shows the assailant entering Plaintiff's cell, closing
the door, and leaving approximately 90 seconds later. The
attack is not shown on video. Plaintiff remained in his cell
until 9:54 p.m. A correctional officer arrives a minute
to Plaintiff, his assailant's motivation was retribution
as Plaintiff had been accused of killing the assailant's
cousin. His assailant and the individual Plaintiff was
alleged to have killed had different last names, and
Plaintiff testified that he had no prior knowledge of a
familial relationship between these two individuals.
Pl.'s Dep. 35:4-7; 36:10-13. Plaintiff also testified
that he did not know the name of his alleged victim at the
time he was booked into the jail. Id. 28:23-29:2.
testified that his assailant was taken off the cell block
shortly before the attack. Id. 45:1-8. Plaintiff has
not identified the officer who did this, and he does not know
where his assailant allegedly went. Records from the jail
show that two officers were assigned as “rovers”
in the area of the jail where Plaintiff was housed. (Doc.
46-2 at 9). Plaintiff names one of the officers (Officer
Bluhm) in his amended complaint, but Plaintiff does not
allege that Officer Bluhm was the guard who removed his
assailant from the cell block. Plaintiff does not make any
allegations regarding the other officer.
the assault, Plaintiff was taken to the medical unit, and
later the hospital. (Doc. 58-1 at 15). Plaintiff was treated
for lacerations on his face and ...