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.

Wiggins v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 25, 2017

MALCOLM WIGGINS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, et al. Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DONALD G. WILKERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge David R. Herndon 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 Motion for Preliminary Injunction[1] (Doc. 8). 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 Malcolm Wiggins is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 2, 2017 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that his cell was shaken down because he was known to file grievances and, during the course of said shakedown, officers subjected him to excessive force and an unreasonable strip search, causing him injury. Plaintiff's complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and he was allowed to proceed on the following claims:

Count One: John Doe used excessive force on Plaintiff when he cuffed his hands too tightly, causing injury in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count Two: Doe and Unknown Orange Crush Member conducted an unreasonable strip search of Plaintiff when they conducted it in a humiliating manner, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count Three: Dennison and Yurkovich had a custom or practice of directing and/or condoning strip searches and/or shakedowns conducted in an unreasonable manner in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count Four: David, Apostle, and Pittayathihan were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs when they delayed treating him after he suffered injuries during the shakedown and persisted in a course of medical treatment after it proved ineffective in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         Soon after his complaint was filed, on July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address informing the Court that he had been transferred and was currently incarcerated at the Illinois River Correctional Center (“Illinois River”). On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the motion for preliminary injunction now before the Court (Doc. 8). In his motion, Plaintiff requests the following injunctive relief:

1. Plaintiff seeks to be permanently housed on the lower level of any housing unit and to be issued a permanent “low bunk” permit due to having a bone protruding out of his skin due to his Orange Crush injury;
2. Plaintiff seeks front-cuff permits “until surgery is done”; and
3. Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to immediately order an MRI and refer him to be seen by a specialist to determine why he is in constant severe pain.

         Plaintiff also included a “memorandum of law” with his motion that is styled as a complaint and names as defendants Justin Hammers, the Warden of Illinois River, Mark Pirtle, the Assistant Warden of Programs at Illinois River, Healthcare Administrator Jane Doe, Nurse Practitioner Bridget Doe, and Medical Director Dr. K. Osmundson. Plaintiff indicates that each defendant is “sued individually and in his official capacity.” In the factual section of his memorandum, Plaintiff complains that he is being targeted by correctional officers and healthcare staff and will suffer imminent injury due to the illegal acts of the prison staff. Plaintiff fails to articulate how the staff is targeting him or what imminent injury he is facing. Plaintiff, however, indicates that this case presents extraordinary circumstances and he cannot wait to exhaust his administrative remedies.

         Plaintiff also filed a number of declarations in support of his motion (see Docs. 34-35, 38-42). In these declarations, Plaintiff asserts that he is an asthmatic and complains that he is only receiving a new inhaler once every six months. Plaintiff seeks a ...


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.