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.

Williamss v. Clark

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 4, 2018

FELTON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
LT. CLARK, C/O HYDE, AND C/O MCANN, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Hon. Reona J. Daly, United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Felton Williams' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

         Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Felton Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was attacked by another inmate and, after officers broke up that fight, they beat him and broke his nose. After a threshold screening of Plaintiff's complaint, he was allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C/O McAnn, C/O Hyde, and Lt. Clark.

         Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to add a claim of deliberate indifference against Nurses Rebecca and Jody, C/O Anderton, and Lt. Clark. Plaintiff alleges he told these defendants that his nose was broken, but they failed to provide, or take any action to ensure he received, medical treatment. Plaintiff also seeks to add a retaliation claim against Lt. Clark and C/O Anderton, alleging these defendants purported to interview him, but used the interview to scare and intimidate him after he filed grievances. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to add a state law negligence claim against Nurses Jody and Rebecca related to their failure to treat or diagnose his broken nose, and a state law battery claim against C/O Hyde and McAnn related to their alleged attack on Plaintiff.

         Discussion

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires." The Seventh Circuit maintains a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings "so that cases may be decided on the merits and not on the basis of technicalities." Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1334 (7th Cir. 1977). The Circuit recognizes that "the complaint merely serves to put the defendant on notice and is to be freely amended or constructively amended as the case develops, as long as amendments do not unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant." Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1298 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Winger v. Winger, 82 F.3d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure create [a system] in which the complaint does not fix the plaintiff's rights but may be amended at any time to conform to the evidence.") (quotation omitted). A court may also deny a party leave to amend if there is undue delay, dilatory motive or futility. Guise v. BMW Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004).

         The Court reviews the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint in light of the standards set forth above and finds as follows.

         1. Count One: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C/O Hyde and C/O McAnn

         Plaintiff's proposed Count One is substantially similar to the Eighth Amendment claim currently pending in this action. However, Plaintiff has not named Defendant Clark in connection with this claim. As such, Plaintiff shall only move forward on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Hyde and McAnn.

         2. Count Two: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against C/O Anderton, Lt. Clark, Nurse Rebecca, and Nurse Jody

         The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const., amend. VIII; see also Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010). As the Supreme Court has recognized, “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners” may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). In order to prevail on such a claim, the plaintiff must first show that his condition was “objectively, sufficiently serious” and second, that the “prison officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

         Plaintiff's allegations against C/O Anderton, Lt. Clark, Nurse Rebecca, and Nurse Jody are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges he advised these defendants that his nose was broken, but they failed to take any action to ensure he received adequate treatment. As a result, Plaintiff alleges he was made to wait approximately four months for treatment and his nose healed improperly. Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed against Defendants Anderton, Clark, Nurse Rebecca, and Nurse Jody on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.

         3. First Amendment retaliation claim against Lt. ...


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.