Henderson v. Pate
| Decision Date | 26 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 16767.,16767. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 507 |
| Parties | Adell HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden, Frank J. PATE of Joliet, Stateville Penitentiary and Director of Public Safety, Ross J. Randolph, Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
R. Eden Martin, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
William G. Clark, John J. George, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees. John J. O'Toole, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Before KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge, and KILEY and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff-appellant, Adell Henderson, has taken this appeal from an order dismissing his "Criminal Complaint" in the United States District Court. Plaintiff is an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary. He is proceeding here mainly under the Federal Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Habeas Corpus Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and asks for appropriate remedies including money damages and release. He asserts that he was denied adequate medical attention and was physically mistreated by a "goon" squad apparently composed of other inmates in the penitentiary. There are other allegations of mistreatment as well. The complaint is vague. It is evident, however, that the District Judge did construe plaintiff's document liberally.
The plaintiff had on file in the District Court a prior complaint, No. 67 C 948 against Frank J. Pate and Dr. Julius Lenkcus, which plaintiff asked to have included in this appeal. In that complaint he spoke of specific medical symptoms, mentioned the taking of X-rays and being advised of negative results. It thus appears that plaintiff did receive medical attention although it apparently did not meet with his satisfaction. The District Court was not in error in dismissing a complaint where the facts pleaded contradicted the claim. United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 1963, 323 F.2d 410, 412.
As to the "goon" squad, counsel argues that these inmates must have been acting under some kind of authority in physically abusing the plaintiff. However, the allegations fall far short of alleging that these persons were acting under color of law. Kregger v. Posner, D.C., E.D., Mich. S.D., 1966, 248 F.Supp. 804, 806; Pritt v. Johnson, D.C., M.D., Pa., 1967, 264 F.Supp. 167.
Plaintiff's conclusory statements, as the District Court noted, failed to assert a claim for relief under the civil rights or habeas corpus statutes. Certainly the allegations here fail to disclose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lock v. Jenkins
...Schmidt, 57 F.R.D. 37 (W.D.Wis.1972), citing inter alia, U.S. ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 323 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1963); Henderson v. Pate, 409 F.2d 507 (7th Cir. 1969). Plaintiffs produced no medical testimony to substantiate their medical claim. Such is required. Hampton v. Holmesburg Priso......
-
Butler v. Bensinger
...than that he is dissatisfied as to the adequacy of treatment actually received for a particular injury or ailment. Henderson v. Pate, 409 F.2d 507, 508 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 233, 24 L. Ed.2d 191. It is clear to this court that Dr. Venckus did examine Robert Bu......
-
Mathis v. Pratt, 73 C 67.
...States Constitution. Kontos v. Prasse, 444 F.2d 166 (3rd Cir. 1971); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir. 1970); Henderson v. Pate, 409 F.2d 507 (7th Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 323 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1963); Coppinger v. Townsend, 398 F. 2d 392 (10th Cir. If......
-
Gittlemacker v. Prasse
...through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). 7 See Henderson v. Pate, 409 F.2d 507, 508 (7 Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 323 F.2d 410 (7 Cir. 1963); Hurley v. Field, 282 F.Supp. 34 (C.D.Cal.1968); Goodchi......