Joeseph Townsend v. John Doe 5, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants Plaintiff Joeseph Townsend leave to file a first amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court dismisses in part the crisis-team access claim but allows claims concerning deliberate indifference to medical needs, excessive force, and failure to intervene to proceed against specified correctional officials. The court also denies motions for default, grants withdrawal of an exhaustion defense, dismisses Warden Darren Galloway, and directs service and responsive pleadings.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires, and plaintiff's second motion for leave to amend was granted because he sought to identify John Doe defendants and add defendants based on discovery, and defendants did not oppose the motion.
2. The allegation that plaintiff's request for a crisis-team member was ignored, standing alone, did not state an Eighth Amendment claim because it was not directed to a specific defendant and did not show that defendants knew plaintiff faced a substantial risk of danger or harm at the time of the request.
3. Count 1 may proceed against Johnson, Chandler, Young, Miles, and Levanti based on their alleged failure to obtain immediate medical care after plaintiff ingested large quantities of medication and required urgent attention.
4. Count 2 may proceed against Horn, Johnson, Young, Miles, Chandler, Colson, and Charelton because the allegations supported an inference that the defendants used force maliciously or sadistically to cause harm, or failed to intervene to prevent excessive force.
5. Count 3 may proceed against Dubree, Young, Johnson, and Banks based on allegations that officers applied force to plaintiff's hand and thumb and forced him upright in a medical chair while he was handcuffed, shackled, and belted.
6. Default judgment was not warranted because defendants had continued filing pleadings, including answers, and therefore had not failed to plead or otherwise defend the action.
7. The motion by Dubree, Levanti, Johnson, and Young to withdraw the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies was granted, and the defense was deemed withdrawn.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to file the proposed first amended complaint and additional time to identify defendants.
2. Whether the first amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on defendants' failure to obtain medical care after plaintiff ingested a large quantity of medication.
3. Whether the first amended complaint stated Eighth Amendment excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims arising from plaintiff's restraint in his cell and treatment in the health care unit.
4. Whether default judgment was warranted against defendants who had continued to plead and defend the action.
5. Whether defendants should be permitted to withdraw the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Disposition

other