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.

Doe v. MacLeod

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

August 21, 2019

JANE DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD MacLEOD et al., Defendants.

          OPINION

          TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion to Compel Defendants Burke and Sexton to Produce Information and Material Responsive to Plaintiff's First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (d/e 59) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Doe alleges that she was incarcerated in the Logan Correctional Center (Logan) in Logan County, Illinois from March 2015 to August 2017. She additionally alleges that Defendant Richard MacLeod was a counselor at Logan. She further alleges that in 2016 and 2017 MacLeod repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was housed at Logan. She claims that when she reported the sexual assaults, she was transferred to Decatur Correctional Center in retaliation for making the report. See Complaint (d/e 1), ¶¶ 8, 15-35. The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) operated Logan.

         Doe further alleges that Defendant Margaret Burke was Warden of Logan at the time and Defendant Todd Sexton was a member of Logan's Internal Affairs Department. The Complaint alleges the following regarding Burke and Sexton:

36. On information and belief, Ms. Doe's transfer was carried out by defendant Sexton, defendant Warden Burke, and other as-yet-unidentified defendants, in retaliation for plaintiff's complaint about Macleod, and with the knowledge that it would be harmful to plaintiff.
37. On information and belief, defendant Macleod abused other women at Logan in the same way that he abused plaintiff. Other IDOC personnel at Logan, including but not limited to Sexton, knew as early as February 2017 that Macleod was in fact engaging in this pattern of abuse.
42. Likewise, in the manner described more fully above, defendants Sexton, Burke and other as-yet-unidentified defendants violated Ms. Doe's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because they knew that plaintiff's rights were being violated, had the realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent or stop the misconduct from occurring, and failed to do so. In the alternative, these defendants were on notice of a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff and they consciously disregarded that risk.
43. The misconduct described in this count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with malice and knowing disregard for plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights, and not for any legitimate penological purpose.

         Complaint, ¶¶36-37, 42-43. Does alleges claims against Burke and Sexton for violation of her Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and for retaliating against her in violation of her First Amendment rights. Complaint, Counts I and II.

         On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Doe served Burke and Sexton with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Burke and Sexton have responded. Plaintiff believed the responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production were inadequate. The parties attempted but could not work out their differences by themselves. Plaintiff asks this Court to compel Defendants Burke and Sexton to provide responses to Interrogatories 6 and 7, and to produce documents responsive to Request for Production 28.

         ANALYSIS

         Interrogatories ...


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.