James Owens v. Salvador Godinez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10884
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Owens, an Illinois inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation based on insufficient toothpaste, mail supplies, and laundry detergent at three prisons between 2006–2010.
- District court screened out many defendants for lack of personal involvement and dismissed claims tied to two prisons as time-barred by Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations, leaving claims tied to Pinckneyville and a potential continuing-official-capacity claim against the DOC director.
- After recruitment of counsel and consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, defendants moved for summary judgment; the magistrate granted it, finding no evidence the warden knew of Owens’s dental needs and that retaliation claims lacked supporting evidence.
- The court also held injunctive relief moot after Owens’s transfer to a facility where he received adequate toothpaste.
- Owens appealed; the court found his pro se motion for an extension filed within the original appeal window could be treated as a timely notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to dental needs | Owens: indigent toothpaste allotment was inadequate given gum disease | Defendants: no evidence warden knew of condition or need for extra toothpaste | No genuine issue; summary judgment for defendants |
| Retaliation for filing grievances/lawsuits | Owens: denial of mail and supplies was punitive and retaliatory | Defendants: DOC policy limits postage to legal mail; no evidence defendants distributed indigent supplies as punishment | Retaliation claims fail for lack of evidence |
| Monell liability against DOC | Owens: DOC policy caused constitutional violations (inadequate supplies) | Defendants: state agency not a "person" under § 1983 | Dismissed — DOC not subject to § 1983 suit under Will |
| Statute of limitations / equitable tolling for claims from Hill and Big Muddy | Owens: equitable tolling due to impeded access to courts 2009–2013 | Defendants: plaintiff litigated frequently in 2009–2010; no extraordinary barriers shown | Tolling denied; claims time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.) (warning against improperly joining unrelated claims and defendants)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits)
- Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir.) (discussion of accrual and statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Illinois)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal/municipal-entity liability under § 1983)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Rosado v. Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 714 (7th Cir.) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary impediment)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (substance over form: documents filed within Rule 4 time that give Rule 3 notice can suffice as notice of appeal)