Santiago v. Walls
| Decision Date | 29 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-1219.,07-1219. |
| Citation | 599 F.3d 749 |
| Parties | Fabian SANTIAGO, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Jonathan R. WALLS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Nicholas J. Eichenseer, Attorney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Carl Elitz, Attorney, Office of The Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before RIPPLE, ROVNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Fabian Santiago was a prisoner at the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois ("Menard"), where he was assaulted on several occasions. He filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against certain officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), alleging that they had violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from other inmates, failing to provide him with medical care and retaliating against him for speaking out against the IDOC. The court dismissed three of the seven claims that Mr. Santiago brought for failure to state a claim. During discovery, Mr. Santiago repeatedly requested that the court recruit counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1).1 However, the court declined to do so until three months before trial which was more than twenty months after discovery had closed. After a two-day trial, a jury found in favor of the defendants and Mr. Santiago brought this appeal. Because we believe that the district court erred in dismissing Count Four of Mr Santiago's complaint and abused its discretion by not recruiting counsel for Mr. Santiago during discovery, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings.
On April 17, 2001, while Mr. Santiago was a prisoner at Menard, 2 he fought with his cellmate, Haynes.3 Another inmate Isaac Harris, witnessed the altercation; during the tight he yelled for Mr. Santiago "not to trip" because Harris had him. R.l (5/21/2002 Grievance Report). Mr. Santiago interpreted this verbal intervention as a threat of retaliation. Correctional Officer ("CO.") Gary Rednour and C.O. Butler witnessed this exchange but did not report the threat to the prison authorities. Although Mr. Santiago filed a grievance regarding the alleged threat by Harris, he claims that he was unable to list Harris as an enemy 4 because he knew Harris only by a nickname, "Ice."
In a prison disciplinary proceeding concerning Mr. Santiago's fight with Haynes, Mr. Santiago was found guilty of fighting and was placed in segregation for six months. The grievance officer's report noted that, in the future, Mr. Santiago should report any enemies to his counselor so that such individuals would not be placed in his cell.
On May 15, 2002, Warden Jonathan Walls and Captain Ramage assigned Mr. Santiago to Harris's cell. Later that day, while Mr. Santiago was eating lunch in the cafeteria, Harris attacked him. Mr. Santiago alleges that, during the ensuing fight, Sergeant Suemnicht was standing approximately fifteen feet away but did not intervene until Mr. Santiago got up, turned around and attempted to hit Harris. At that time, Sergeant Suemnicht sprayed Mr. Santiago and Harris with pepper spray. C.O. John Doe 15 then tackled Mr. Santiago to the ground, causing him "extreme pain." R.28 at 5. The complaint further alleges that, while escorting Mr. Santiago to the infirmary, C.O. John Doe 1, "brutally yank[ed] and rip[ped]" backwards Mr. Santiago's handcuffs, giving him abrasions and causing him further pain. Id. Mr. Santiago further alleges that he was treated in this manner by the officers even though he offered no resistance.
According to Mr. Santiago's complaint, when he reached the infirmary, Dr. John Doe refused to treat him. Dr. John Doe instead told CO. Keys to move Mr. Santiago to a segregation unit. CO. Keys first placed Mr. Santiago in a holding cell within view of a surveillance camera and then later moved him to segregation. Mr. San tiago states that he suffered from migraine headaches and facial pain and that he had trouble eating.
Not long after the Harris assault, Mr. Santiago was moved into a cell with Castro, who, Mr. Santiago alleges, had a history of assaulting his cellmates. Mr. Santiago filed an emergency grievance with Warden Walls, requesting that his cellmate be placed on his enemy list and seeking relocation to avoid a physical confrontation.6 The request specifically informed the warden that Mr. Santiago believed there was a conscious practice on the part of the prison guards to place him with inmates with whom he was bound to have a confrontation that would result in his being sent to segregation. Warden Walls took no action.7 Four days later, Mr. Santiago was assaulted severely by Castro and sustained cuts, swelling and bruises to his face—"the walls, floor and bed full of my blood." R.l at 5. Mr. Santiago alleges that, after he was assaulted, CO. Jines, CO. Cox and others refused to provide him with medical treatment. He further alleges that the guards placed him in another cell with a prisoner who had assaulted a guard. The complaint also alleges that prison guards attempted to place him in a yard with Harris in order to expose him to further attack.
In July 2003, Mr. Santiago filed this pro se section 1983 action in the Southern District of Illinois against the defendants. The district court divided the amended complaint into seven counts: Count One against Warden Walls, C.O. Ramage and CO. Keys for failing to protect Mr. Santiago from the Harris assault; Count Two against Sergeant Suemnicht and CO. John Doe 1 for using excessive force following the Harris assault; Count Three against CO. Keys for using excessive force against Mr. Santiago and against Dr. John Doe for failing to provide medical care following the Harris assault; Count Four against Warden Walls for failing to protect Mr Santiago from Castro; Count Five against Warden Walls for failing to protect Mr. Santiago by moving him into the same cell block as Harris after Mr. Santiago was released from segregation; Count Six against C.O. Jines and CO. Cox for failing to provide Mr. Santiago with medical treatment following the Castro assault; and Count Seven against Warden Walls and CO. Keys for retaliating against Mr. Santiago for speaking out against IDOC employees. R.l; R.28.
During the course of litigation, the court dismissed Counts One, Two and Four without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court also dismissed Captain Ramage, Sergeant Suemnicht, CO. Rednour and CO. Butler from the case because they were not named as defendants in the surviving claims.
In 2004 and 2005, Mr. Santiago filed motions in an attempt to conduct discovery. On August 9, 2004, he sought to compel the defendants to disclose discovery materials. Mr. Santiago observed that Warden Walls's and C.O. Keys's response contained little of the material that he requested more than four months prior. They claimed that the identities of the witnesses to the Harris and Castro assaults were "not relevant" to the case, and they instructed Mr. Santiago to obtain the information that he needed through the IDOC. R.85, Ex. A at 2. Mr. Santiago had maintained that communication with IDOC would not be useful without first learning the identities of the witnesses, and he noted that IDOC would only allow inmates to communicate with relatives. On August 20, the district court concluded that Mr. Santiago's motion was premature because he had not made a good-faith effort to resolve his dispute after receiving objections and a response to his discovery request. Mr. Santiago unsuccessfully filed an objection to the ruling.
On October 28, Mr. Santiago filed a "motion requesting to depose all defendants, witnesses." R.100. His motion was denied on the basis that he did not need leave to depose the defendants. Mr. Santiago filed a motion for sanctions on February 23, 2005, which he later supplemented, stating that the defendants had failed to comply with his discovery requests. On May 23, the district court denied his motion for sanctions, finding that Mr. Santiago had not made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute because he had failed to confer with the defendants regarding their objections and responses to his discovery requests.
At the close of discovery, Mr. Santiago had not succeeded in identifying CO. John Doe 1, Dr. John Doe or any witnesses to the Harris and Castro assaults. He had not taken any depositions or served any interrogatories. Mr. Santiago was also unable to obtain any of the prison surveillance videos.
Before and during discovery, Mr. Santiago filed several motions seeking the recruitment of counsel.
On August 28, 2003, the court denied Mr. Santiago's first such motion:
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has made reasonable attempts to retain counsel and has not shown that he was effectively precluded from making a diligent effort in this regard. However, the facts and issues in this case are not complex and it appears at this time that plaintiff is able to determine the facts and present his case without assistance from counsel. Finally, plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits is, at this point, questionable.
R.15 at 2 (footnote omitted).
In February 2004, Mr. Santiago filed a second motion seeking the recruitment of counsel. See R.28. He maintained that he needed assistance obtaining and reviewing evidence including reports, grievances medical documents and camera footage. Mr. Santiago also stated that he needed assistance contacting and interviewing several witnesses.
In April, Mr. Santiago filed a third motion for the recruitment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.
...all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and view[ ] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir.2010). To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a “s......
-
Hunt v. Dart
...state during the incident, of course, is a key factor in the calculus. Lewis, 581 F.3d at 477–78. As the court said in Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 762 (7th Cir.2010), an excessive force claim “require[s] that [plaintiff] present relevant and probative evidence about the state of mind o......
-
Kitchen v. Ickes
...of chemical agents is reasonable when an officer is attempting to maintain order and discipline in the institution. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 757 (7th Cir.2010) (determining that Eighth Amendment was not violated where pepper spray was used to break up inmate fight); Combs v. Wilkins......
-
Pevia v. Comm'r of Corr.
... ... attempting to maintain order and discipline in the ... institution. Santiago v. Walls , 599 F.3d 749, 757 ... (7th Cir. 2010) (determining that Eighth Amendment was not ... violated where pepper spray was used to ... ...
-
Correctional Case Law: 2010
...v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010).Schauer, F. (2009). Is it important to be important? Evaluating the Supreme Court’s case-selection process. YaleLaw Journal Online, 119, 77–86. Retrieved October 9, 2010, from http://yalelawjournal.org/2009/12/09/schauer.html.Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3......