United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JOHN D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff,
ADRIAN FEINERMAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Adrian Feinerman's Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 36). Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison
recommended that this Court deny the Motion. (ECF No. 45).
Defendant objected. (ECF No. 46). Construing the Complaint in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff John D. Haywood and
drawing all inferences in his favor, Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL HISTORY
to the Complaint, Plaintiff was imprisoned at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) in Chester,
Illinois in November 2007. (ECF No. 1 at 6). He relies on a
wheelchair to get around; a debilitating back injury in 1995
left him temporarily paralyzed, and the discovery of bone
cancer one year later resulted in the partial amputation of
his left foot. (ECF No. 1 at 5). But upon incarceration at
Menard, Defendant-Menard's Medical Director-confiscated
Plaintiff's weight displacement brace and chair back
brace. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Defendant told him that due to his
maximum-security classification and the fact that Menard is
not a wheelchair-accessible facility, Plaintiff would be
housed in a non-handicapped-accessible area of the health
care unit. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
wrote to Assistant Warden Gary Conder asking for an emergency
medical transfer to Big Muddy River Correctional Center. (ECF
No. 1 at 6). Conder replied and informed Plaintiff that a
transfer request could not be accommodated until Plaintiff
was at Menard for at least six months. (ECF No. 1 at 6). At
approximately 7:00 AM the following day, Defendant chastised
Plaintiff for going “over his head” and ordered
Plaintiff to gather his belongings. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
Defendant instructed a corrections officer to push Plaintiff
off his wheelchair and confiscate it. (ECF No. 1 at 6). The
corrections officer told Plaintiff that he would be sent to
the segregation unit if he did not get to the third floor of
the North One housing area in a timely fashion. (ECF No. 1 at
6). When a lieutenant protested and demanded a wheelchair for
Plaintiff, he was denied at Defendant's behest. (ECF No.
1 at 6). The lieutenant obtained a cart from a groundskeeper
and pushed Plaintiff in it until they arrived at North One.
(ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff crawled up the three flights of
stairs and was taken to his cell in a gallery cart. (ECF No.
1 at 7).
month later, Plaintiff was moved to a cell on the first floor
of the West House housing area and placed on “permanent
lay-in” for over eight years. (ECF No. 1 at 7). From
December 2009 to March 2016, Plaintiff was prohibited from
leaving West House: no yard, chow hall, chapel, library,
commissary, or prison programs. (ECF No. 1 at 7). Apart from
visits to the health care unit, Plaintiff was denied access
to a wheelchair for the entire period. (ECF No. 1 at 7). Even
as he was transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center in
March 2016, Plaintiff was denied access to a wheelchair and
forced to crawl on the pavement to the bus. (ECF No. 1 at 7).
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center-filed suit
against 21 individual defendants and two unknown medical
staff members pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
severed the claims into four new cases. (See ECF No.
14). Counts 3 and 4 against Defendant are the only remaining
se Complaint raises two claims against Defendant: (1)
deliberate indifference under the Eight Amendment; and (2)
retaliation under the First Amendment. Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss arguing that the claims are barred by the
statute of limitations. Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this
Court deny Defendant's Motion. Defendant objected,
prompting de novo review.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed
dispositive findings, recommendations, or reports
(collectively “R&R”). SDIL-LR 73.1(b). The
district court shall review de novo those portions of the
R&R that are specified in the party's written
objection. Id. The district court may accept,
reject, or modify the R&R, in whole or in part.
to dismiss for failure to state a claim are governed by Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To survive,
a complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as
true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “When there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and
then determine whether they plausible give rise to an
entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “[A]ssuming that a plausible
claim for relief is pleaded, the Federal Rules continue to
rely on discovery and summary judgment practice to define the
issues, identify genuine fact disputes, and dispose of
unmeritorious claims.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 advisory
committee's note. “At this stage the plaintiff
receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the
hypotheses are consistent with the complaint.”
Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology,
Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994). And a pro se
complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, ” must be
held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
Eighth Amendment Claim: Deliberate Indifference
argues that Plaintiff's Eight Amendment deliberate
indifference claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
Specifically, Defendant argues that since the Complaint makes
no mention of Defendant after 2008, ...