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.

Arnoldd v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 20, 2018

SEAN ARNOLD, Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          YANDLE, District Judge

         Plaintiff Sean Arnold, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs arising from the attack. Following threshold screening, Plaintiff has proceeded on the following claims:

Count 1: Butler failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment after receiving a grievance notifying her of potential danger to Plaintiff.
Count 2: Godinez and Anderson failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying a grievance from him requesting protective custody.
Count 3: Hof and John Doe 2 failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by his cellmate after Plaintiff informed them of the danger he faced, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Count 4: Wexford showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need involving injuries to his head in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         This case is now before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) (Doc. 51). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 69). Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 36 and 37), to which Defendants filed Responses (Docs. 39 and 45). For the following reasons, both parties' motions are DENIED.

         Wexford's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust

         In support of its motion, Wexford contends that Arnold failed to file a grievance within 60 days of the initial incident and that the grievance he ultimately filed made no reference to Wexford Health Sources. Arnold argues that he timely filed a grievance on April 20, 2015 and made specific reference to at least two Wexford employees.

         Arnold attached the April 20, 2015 grievance to his Complaint (Doc. 1-1 at 10-11). In the grievance, he asserts that he was stabbed in the head and face with a jailhouse weapon, and beaten continuously in the head with a fan on February 24, 2015 (Id. at 10). The nurse treated his wounds on that date, but did not address his head trauma (Id.). He was never tested for concussion, nor given a CT-scan to test his head for injury (Id.). He sent requests to the healthcare unit for two months to be seen for constant headaches and memory loss (Id. at 11). He was having trouble processing information (Id.). He gave Nurse Etrin his request to be seen by health care, but was not called to sick call (Id.). He also sent a request to Dr. Trost, the Health Care Administrator, and informed him that he had been requesting medical attention and had not received any (Id.). The relief requested was to be seen by a doctor and to be given a CT-Scan to reveal what is wrong with his head.

         On June 4, 2015, the counselor responded that the Health Care Unit had been contacted regarding Arnold's grievance and that they had seen him three times since the grievance was filed. The counselor instructed that if he continued to have issues, he should submit a sick call request and that a request slip was attached for his use (Id.). Arnold was transferred from Menard to Hill Correctional Center on July 29, 2015 (Id. at 8).

         Arnold sent the grievance to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). It was denied by the ARB because he had failed to include copies of the Grievance Officer's and Chief Administrative Officer's responses to the appeal (Id. at 44). Arnold re-submitted the grievance to the ARB explaining that he had been transferred and could not get the responses (Id. at 39). On September 17, 2015, the ARB reviewed Arnold's appeal a second time and denied it because it was not submitted within 60 days of the incident (Id. at 34).

         Legal Standards

         Summary ...


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.