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.

Rodriguez v. Ferranto

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 10, 2019

JEFFREY RODRIGUEZ, #R70551, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY FERRANTO, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Jeffrey Rodriguez, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rodriguez asserts he was subjected to excessive force by Defendants while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center.

         This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Defendants' motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         Background

         Rodriguez alleges the following in his Complaint: On May 3, 2016, Rodriguez was involved in a verbal altercation with Lieutenant Scott while walking to commissary. During the incident, Lieutenant Scott yelled racial insults and told Rodriguez he looked familiar “while holding a sinister smile on his face.” Rodriguez attacked Lieutenant Scott “out of paranoia.” In response to Rodriguez's action, Officer Ferranto and other correctional officers restrained and assaulted Rodriguez (“Assault #1”). After Assault #1, Rodriguez was taken to the Health Care Unit (“HCU”) and, upon arrival, he was assaulted while restrained by Major Children, Sergeant Bebout, and Major Hasemeyer (“Assault #2”). Rodriguez was eventually examined by a nurse, his injuries were documented, and he was cleared to leave HCU. After leaving HCU, Rodriguez was taken to the Internal Affairs office and then to the North 2 segregation building. He was placed in the segregation visiting room and assaulted while restrained by Sergeant Bebout and other correctional officers (“Assault #3”). After Assault #3, Rodriguez was placed in a cell in the 2 gallery in North 2 segregation. Later that day, Rodriguez was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center.

         Following review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Rodriguez was allowed to proceed on the following claims at issue in this motion:[1]

Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Ferranto for assaulting Rodriguez while he was restrained during Assault #1 on May 3, 2016.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Children, Bebout, and Hasemeyer for assaulting Rodriguez while he was restrained during Assault #2 on May 3, 2016.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Bebout for assaulting Rodriguez while he was restrained during Assault #3 on May 3, 2016.

         Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

         Defendant filed the pending motion for summary judgment arguing that Rodriguez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Docs. 21 and 22). Rodriguez has not filed a response to the motion, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court considers Rodriguez's failure to respond an admission of the facts of Defendants' motion. SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c) (failure to timely file a response to a motion may be considered an admission of the merits of the motion); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(facts may be considered undisputed if a party fails to respond as required by Rule 56(c)); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003)(failure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995) (non-movant's failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment constitutes an admission that there are no disputed issues of material facts).

         The following facts are undisputed. An inmate may grieve prison conditions with the Illinois Department of Corrections by following the grievance procedures set forth in 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.800 et seq. (Doc. 22, p. 2). Rodriguez received a disciplinary ticket for an incident that occurred on May 3, 2016. (Id.). Rodriguez filed a grievance regarding the May 3, 2016 incident on June 27, 2016 directly to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) because Rodriguez was no longer at the facility from which the allegations in his grievance arose. (Id.; Doc. 22-2, p. 4). In the grievance, Rodriguez alleges that excessive force was used to restrain him after he assaulted an officer and that he was “brutally beaten” by an unknown amount of officers on May 3, 2016. (Id.). Rodriguez filed a second grievance related to the May 3, 2016 incident on July 24, 2016. (Id.). Rodriguez's grievances were reviewed and ruled on by the ARB on February 1, 2017. (Id.).

         Legal Standards

         “Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, discovery materials, disclosures, and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact such that [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 2010); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). All facts and reasonable inferences must ...


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.