Federal Civil Practice

Dist. Ct. erred in failing to grant plaintiff-prisoner’s request to amend his section 1983 complaint alleging that defendants-certain prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with Cialis to medically rehabilitate his penile function after having undergone surgery to remove his prostate. Plaintiff’s wanted to add to complaint proposed defendant who had actually denied giving plaintiff Cialis, and that plaintiff was unaware of identity of proposed defendant until summary judgment phase of case. As such, Dist. Ct. should have allowed plaintiff to add proposed defendant to complaint. Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that proposed defendant would be able to successfully assert qualified immunity, where court observed that such defense can only be raised by proposed defendant after proposed defendant had opportunity to litigate issue. Moreover, allegation that proposed defendant’s denial of Cialis was based upon prison policy that categorically precluded treatment for erectile dysfunction created question of fact as to whether proposed defendant could assert qualified immunity. Also, Dist. Ct.’s rationales for denying plaintiff’s request to add proposed defendant, i.e. that plaintiff would not allow proposed defendant access to his medical records or that proposed defendant was merely enforcing prison policy, were not supported by record.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendant in section 1983 action against defendants-City and others alleging malicious prosecution and unlawful detention arising out of incident in which police officer had allegedly pushed plaintiff out of window prior to his arrest on charges under Ill. armed career criminal statute. Instant action was precluded by release that plaintiff had given in prior settlement of 1983 action alleging excessive force against police officer involved in instant arrest, where language in release indicated that release covered all claims against defendant City, “including but not limited to all claims under…state or federal law, arising either directly or indirectly” out of incident which was basis of instant litigation. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that scope of release covered only prior excessive force action, where Ct. found that release was designed to resolve all claims related to plaintiff’s arrest and not only ones that plaintiff asserted in first lawsuit. Moreover, claims in instant lawsuit were reasonably foreseeable to parties at time release was generated.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff-prisoner’s lawsuit, where plaintiff had been granted his petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under Prison Litigation Reform Act based on contention that he had only $219.36 in assets under circumstances where plaintiff had failed to disclose that he had reached $4,000 settlement with state that had yet to be deposited in plaintiff’s prison trust account. While Dist. Ct. concluded that plaintiff’s failure to disclose $4,000 settlement amounted to fraud upon court, Ct. of Appeals found that dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit was improper, because: (1) plaintiff truthfully disclosed all of his assets at time of his IFP application; (2) any failure to report expected $4,000 settlement was at best inadvertent, which did not make IFP application untrue; and (3) actual deposit of $4,000 into plaintiff’s prison trust account approximately one year later constituted adequate disclosure to prison authorities of change in plaintiff’s income. As such, there should not have been any dismissal based on untrue allegations of poverty.

Ct. of Appeals remanded two appeals to Dist. Ct. due to lack of appropriate jurisdictional statement filed by parties that did not comply with court rules. Record showed that both cases were resolved by magistrate judges, but counsel failed to put in jurisdictional statements dates that parties had consented to magistrate judge hearing case as required by Circuit Rule 28(b). Ct. further noted that in one case, parties had failed to mention that decision from which appeal was being taken had been rendered by magistrate judge.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiffs-taxpayers’ action, alleging that defendant-county tax assessor violated their rights under Equal Protection Clause by assessing their properties at rates mandated by local ordinance while assessing other similarly-situated properties at lower rates. Dist. Ct. found that Tax Injunction Act barred instant claims because plaintiffs had adequate forum in state court to raise all of their constitutional claims. Defendant conceded, though, that Illinois’s tax-objection procedures did not allow taxpayers to raise constitutional claims in state court. As such, plaintiffs could proceed in federal court on instant claims. Ct. further rejected argument that principle of comity precluded Dist. Ct. from exercising jurisdiction over instant claims.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action under Illinois Tort Immunity Act (ITIA), seeking to have defendant pay $110,000 default judgment that plaintiff had obtained on police officer employed by defendant arising out of incident in which officer was off-duty in different County and was watching his daughter play soccer game when officer engaged in physical confrontation with plaintiff, while displaying his badge and gun and while making attempts to place plaintiff under arrest. Dist. Ct. could properly find that: (1) officer was not acting within scope of his employment at time of his encounter with plaintiff as required for purposes of imposing liability on defendant under ITIA, where record showed that officer was off duty with his family in County where he was unauthorized to act as Sheriff’s deputy; and (2) plaintiff’s conduct did not advance any valid goal of his employer.

 Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ section 1983 action alleging that defendant-Election Board violated their right to vote, right of freedom to associate and right to petition govt., where plaintiff asserted that defendants’ employees committed fraud and other irregularities when conducting “5 percent” audit of ballots cast in 2016 primary election by erasing tallies at end of audit so as to match preprinted count that had been generated by voting machine. Dist. Ct. could properly find that under operative statute (section 22-9.1 of Election Code) results of audit cannot change result of election, and thus plaintiffs could not allege that defendant deprived them of their right to vote. Ct. further noted that: (1) plaintiffs might have state-law claim for alleged violation of Ill. Election Code; (2) plaintiffs failed to allege freedom of association claim, where plaintiffs failed to assert with whom they were prevented from associating; and (3) record did not support plaintiff’s claim that defendants prevented them from publicly commenting on their concerns at Bd.’s  meeting prior to Bd.’s certification of precinct returns.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 8th Amendment rights by failing to protect him from attack from his cellmate under circumstances where defendants had been aware that cellmate posed danger to plaintiff. Plaintiff established triable issue regarding defendants’ knowledge of risk to plaintiff and their failure to prevent said risk by presenting evidence that said defendants had been aware that: (1) plaintiff, who sought transfer on three occasions, told said defendants that cellmate was acting crazy, and that he did not feel safe with cellmate; (2) plaintiff was designated “pair-with-care,” which required that defendants consult with others prior to placing plaintiff with cellmate; (3) plaintiff sought help from prison’s psychological services by seeking transfer; and (4) cellmate had been transferred to current cell with plaintiff following assault involving prior cellmate. However, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting two defendants’ motion for summary judgment, where plaintiff failed to present evidence that said defendants were aware of cellmate’s prior history of violence or that cellmate otherwise presented plausible threat of violence to plaintiff.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-prison doctor’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to persistent pain in plaintiff's colon. Record showed existence of triable issue as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical condition, where, according to plaintiff, defendant continued with knowingly ineffective treatment for plaintiff’s colon pain for more than six months and delayed for three-month period referral of plaintiff to outside specialist, who performed colorectal exam that revealed source of plaintiff’s pain and performed subsequent surgery that alleviated plaintiff’s pain. Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-consulting prison doctor’s summary judgment motion, where plaintiff failed to show that said defendant was aware of plaintiff’s suffering or his persistent complaints and requests for new course of treatment.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing as untimely plaintiff-prisoner’s administrative complaint under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), where plaintiff placed complaint in prison’s mailbox nine days prior to deadline, and where govt. received complaint after statutory deadline had passed. Prison-mailbox rule applied to instant FTCA complaint so as to render it timely when plaintiff placed complaint in prison mailbox.