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.

Dickey v. Harrington

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 31, 2017

MAECEO DICKEY, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD HARRINGTON, NICHOLAS BEBOUT, DAVID EALEY, REBECCA STEFANI, and C/O HARRIS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge

         Now pending before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Nicholas Bebout, David Ealey, Richard Harrington, and Richard Harris (Doc. 92). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

         Introduction

         Plaintiff Maeceo Dickey, an inmate currently housed at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dickey is proceeding on four counts related to events that allegedly occurred at Menard Correctional Center in October 2013:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Ealey, Bebout, and Harris for using excessive force against Plaintiff on or about October 17, 2013, and against Defendant Harrington for condoning the practice of using excessive force against Menard prisoners;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Stefani, for refusing to examine Plaintiff for injuries immediately following the beating on October 17, 2013;
Count 3: Assault/battery claim against Defendants Ealey, Bebout, and Harris for physically assaulting Plaintiff on or about October 17, 2013;
Count 4: Claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Ealey, Bebout, and Harris for beating Plaintiff on or about October 17, 2013, and against Defendant Harris for threatening Plaintiff with bodily harm if he reported the assault.

         Defendants seek partial summary judgment on the claims against Defendant Harrington in Count 1 and as to all Defendants on Count 4. Dickey was notified of the consequences of failing to respond to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

         (Doc. 94); nonetheless, he failed to file a response by the deadline of June 13, 2016. On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Affidavit” in which he stated that he sent the attached “affidavits” in response to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment to Defendants on May 25, 2016 (Doc. 102). But there is no indication that Plaintiff submitted the affidavits to the Clerk of Court for filing.[1] By failing to submit a response to the Court, Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 5(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, the Court construes the affidavits as a response to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.[2]

         Background

         On October 17, 2013, Dickey was waiting in line for food when Defendant Ealey pulled him to the side and told him to place his hands on his head. Dickey had forgotten that he was wearing his hat backwards, so he turned his hat around and proceeded to walk toward chow. Defendant Ealey told Dickey “no” and instructed him to go to his cell. Dickey asked if he would be able to get his tray, but was told no. When Dickey started to walk toward his cell, Defendant Ealey, along with Defendants Bebout and Harris, began manhandling him. According to Dickey, Defendants handcuffed him, put him on the floor, and hit and kicked him in the face, back, and ribs (Doc. 93-1, p. 3).

         Defendants continued to assault Dickey as they took him downstairs and to the healthcare unit (Doc. 93-1, pp. 3-4). While there, Dickey claims, Defendant Stefani did not examine him, did not provide pain medication, did not address his complaints of difficulty breathing, and did not stop the “profuse” bleeding (Id. at 4). As a result, he suffered injuries to his rib, lower back, collar bone, and wrist (Id. at 5).

         Defendants acknowledge that an incident occurred on October 17, 2013, but they deny using excessive force. Instead, Defendants claim that Dickey attempted to assault staff, and any force used was only necessary to regain control and prevent harm to self, staff, and other inmates (See Doc. 93-2, p. 7). Dickey admits that he received a disciplinary ticket for ...


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.