Goings v. Jones
3:16-cv-00833
| S.D. Ill. | May 7, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Fredrick Goings, an Illinois prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging use of excessive force, denial of medical care (blood-pressure medication), unreasonable strip searches, failure to protect, false imprisonment/segregation harms, retaliation, and related torts against multiple IDOC officials including Lt. Frank Eovaldi ("Big E").
- After 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening, several claims were allowed to proceed; Goings sought to amend his complaint to add or clarify other claims and defendants.
- Magistrate Judge Wilkerson granted the motion to amend in part and denied several proposed claims as futile or insufficiently pleaded; Goings appealed that partial denial to the district court under Rule 72.
- Goings also moved for recruitment of counsel; the magistrate denied the request without prejudice, concluding Goings (a former practicing attorney) is competent to litigate at this stage.
- An amended scheduling order set limited discovery quotas (interrogatories, document requests, admissions) subject to expansion for good cause; Goings sought more time for initial disclosures and objected to discovery limits.
- District Judge Rosenstengel reviewed the three objections (amendment denial, denial of counsel, scheduling) under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard and affirmed the magistrate judge on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed claim under Ill. Admin. Code §501.30 (corporal punishment) is viable | Goings: regulation creates enforceable right/damages remedy | Magistrate: state prison regulations do not create private damages causes of action | Court: Affirmed magistrate; regulations don’t give rise to constitutional or state-law damage claims |
| Failure-to-intervene claim against unnamed officers | Goings: officers observed assault and failed to intervene | Magistrate: alleged assault was swift, no realistic opportunity to intervene | Court: Affirmed magistrate; allegations don’t show realistic chance to intervene |
| Deliberate indifference for denial of blood-pressure meds (against listed defendants) | Goings: he complained to named defendants about deprivation and suffered harms (including alleged stroke) | Magistrate: complaint does not allege those specific defendants knew of the medication deprivation | Court: Affirmed magistrate; no pleaded allegations defendants had notice of denial of meds |
| Fourth Amendment excessive strip-searches by John Does | Goings: defendants collectively acquiesced; knowledge imputed among officers | Magistrate: plaintiff fails to plead personal involvement of any specific Doe | Court: Affirmed magistrate; §1983 requires personal participation allegations |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against all defendants | Goings: defendants’ unlawful conduct caused severe emotional distress | Magistrate: allegations are conclusory, not particularized as to each defendant or extreme/outrageous | Court: Affirmed magistrate; pleading fails to state IIED with required specificity |
| False imprisonment/due process over segregation placement | Goings: repetitive segregation without ticket constituted false imprisonment/liberty deprivation | Magistrate: placement in administrative/disciplinary segregation is discretionary; allegations imply brief segregation that is not atypical and significant | Court: Affirmed magistrate; pleadings show relatively short segregation and no unlawful restraint for false imprisonment claim; no due process liberty interest shown |
| First Amendment retaliation/campaign of harassment | Goings: he filed grievances and defendants retaliated; lists grievances generally | Magistrate: lacks individualized allegations linking each defendant to retaliatory acts | Court: Affirmed magistrate; plaintiff must allege personal participation by each defendant |
| Appointment of counsel | Goings: complexity, discovery limitations in prison, inability to investigate warrant counsel | Magistrate: Goings is a former attorney, educated, competent; discovery not yet intense | Court: Affirmed magistrate; no showing that case complexity exceeds Goings’s pro se capacity |
| Discovery limits in scheduling order | Goings: wants more interrogatories/requests than the order permits | Magistrate/Defendants: court may limit discovery; order permits expansion for good cause | Court: Affirmed magistrate; limits lawful and expandable on motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926 (7th Cir.) (standard for "clearly erroneous")
- Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228 (7th Cir.) (clarifies clearly erroneous review)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (when confinement gives rise to a protected liberty interest)
- Marion v. Columbia Correctional Inst., 559 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.) (analysis of atypical and significant hardships in segregation)
- Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763 (7th Cir.) (failure-to-intervene standard)
- Peckham v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 141 F.3d 694 (7th Cir.) (deference to prison officials on strip searches)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard)
- Sheik–Abdi v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 1240 (7th Cir.) (§1983 requires personal participation by each defendant)