Schaal v. Rowe, 78-1212.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1212.,78-1212. |
| Citation | 460 F. Supp. 155 |
| Parties | Kevin Lee SCHAAL, Plaintiff, v. Charles J. ROWE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Kevin Lee Schaal, pro se.
James A. Devine, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, Ill., Joseph Moscov, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Deputy Chief Legal Counsel, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, Chicago, Ill. (assisted by Susan Takata, Chicago, Ill.), for defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center, Pontiac, Illinois, when he filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case originally was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, but was transferred to this court pursuant to Senior Judge Hoffman's order of September 15, 1978, granting defendant Rowe's motion for change of venue. Both defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, plaintiff has responded, and the matter is now ready for disposition.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendants refused to grant him a transfer from Pontiac to the Vandalia Correctional Center, a lesser security institution, despite his repeated letters in August and September of 1977 to defendant Rowe and Governor Thompson alleging threats to his personal safety from members of "gangs" among the inmates at Pontiac. Defendant Rowe acknowledged the letters and referred them to defendant Pinkney, the warden at Pontiac. Several exhibits attached to defendant's memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment show that officials at the institution were aware of plaintiff's allegations of threats, but that they did not "feel that he was an appropriate candidate for Protective Custody," and that he was ineligible for transfer because he was scheduled to appear before the parole board in October.
On September 17, 1977, plaintiff was discovered having anal intercourse with another inmate, and was demoted to "C" grade and had one year of statutory good time revoked. Plaintiff alleges that he was actually the victim of an assault which defendants should have prevented, rather than a willing participant in the act. He seeks money damages, a mandatory injunction restoring his lost good time and transferring him to a safer environment, and a prohibitory injunction against any retaliation by defendants.
Because it appears that plaintiff has been paroled, his prayer for injunctive relief is moot. Although he technically remains in the custody of defendant Rowe, as Director of the Department of Corrections, restoration of the good time credits revoked would serve no purpose, as it would only affect his eligibility for parole, which is now an accomplished fact. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 1003-6-3.
Plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from the attack of September 17, however, is not moot. It is well settled that prisoners are entitled to protection from the assaults of other prisoners. Little v. Walker, 552 F.2d 193, 197 (7th Cir. 1977); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971); Penn v. Oliver, 351 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D.Va.1972). In order to state an eighth amendment claim resulting from an attack, however, a prisoner must show that prison officials "deliberately deprived" him of his constitutional rights. Deliberate deprivation may result from actual intent to deprive him of rights or from recklessness in ignoring known threats. Little v. Walker, 552 F.2d 193, 197 & n. 8 (7th Cir. 1977). Both standards are rigorous and in this case neither is met.
Even reading plaintiff's complaint liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), he does not allege that defendants intentionally disregarded his requests for a transfer, and the exhibits show that they did not, in fact, ignore them, but found plaintiff ineligible for a transfer. Reading plaintiff's requests for a transfer as a general request for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Haynes
...deprivation may result from actual intent to deprive him of his rights or from recklessness in ignoring known threats. Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F.Supp. 155, 157 (E.D.Ill.1978). See Little v. Walker, 552 F.2d 193, 197 n.8 (7th Cir. 1977). We conclude there existed sufficient evidence to demonstra......
-
Burr v. Duckworth
...and discretionary decisions that are not the business of federal judges." Id., at 228-29, 96 S.Ct. at 2540; see also, Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.Ill.1978) (allegations that prison officials intentionally disregarded inmate's request for transfer for protection from other inmates d......
-
Hamilton v. Leavy, Civil Action No. 94-336-GMS (D. Del. 7/27/2001)
...F.2d 193 (7th Cir. 1977); Curtis v. Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3d Cir. 1973); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971); Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F. Supp. 155 (S.D.Ill. 1978)). In addition, in Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 1999), when faced with a similar issue, the Second Circuit Co......
-
Blizzard v. Quillen, Civ. A. No. 81-576 MMS.
...Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995, 94 S.Ct. 2409, 40 L.Ed.2d 774 (1974); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir.1971); Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.Ill.1978). Other courts have recognized that when prison officials know of a special danger posed to a specific prisoner, even thoug......