Owens v. Hinsley, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5360

Background

Owens, an Illinois prisoner at Menard, filed a § 1983 action asserting various claims about prison conditions and treatment.
The district court organized Owens's many allegations into seven claims against 15 defendants and dismissed five at screening while granting summary judgment on two.
The Seventh Circuit previously cautioned against multi-claim, multi-defendant suits under Rule 20(a)(2) and severed or dismissed improper joinder when appropriate.
Owens contended grievances were ignored and pursued hunger strikes alleging denial of medical monitoring and treatment.
Two hunger strikes led to involuntary feeding during the second strike, with weight loss but no documented medical complications.
Amended complaints attempting to add numerous new defendants and older claims were struck; later attempts to amend were denied for failing to cure deficiencies and re-asserting previously dismissed claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misjoinder affected the case's viability	Owens argues improper joinder should not bar his claims.	Defendants rely on George v. Smith to support severance/dismissal for improper joinder.	Not a jurisdictional flaw; proceeding declined to sever here.
Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Owens's health during hunger strikes (medical care) when not moved to infirmary	Owens asserts inadequate medical monitoring and care during hunger strikes.	Defendants argue exhaustion or insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference.	Exhaustion failure; no substantial medical harm shown; summary judgment affirmed for defendants.
Whether guards failed to protect Owens from cellmate assaults	Owens contends guards ignored risk and failed to protect him.	Defendants contend there was no objective substantial risk requiring intervention; evidence insufficient.	No triable issue; reasonable jury could not find deliberate indifference; summary judgment affirmed for guards.
Whether Owens's retaliation and denial of medical/dental care claims were properly dismissed for lack of identifiable defendants	Owens asserts retaliation and denial of care by specific officials.	Claims lacked connection to identifiable defendants and proper exhaustion.	Claims dismissed; leave to amend properly denied for futility and failure to cure deficiencies.
Whether Owens exhausted administrative remedies for the medical-care claim	Owens exhausted via grievance submitted August 8, 2004.	Grievance untimely; not properly exhausted under Illinois rules.	Exhaustion not shown; alternative lack of evidence; dismissal affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate actions)
DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, 467 F.3d 842 (3d Cir.2006) (proper severance/dismissal for improper joinder)
Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir.2000) (joinder and dismissal considerations)
Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A., 848 F.2d 674 (6th Cir.1988) (joinder and severance principles)
Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543 (7th Cir.2006) (hunger-strike medical treatment and rights)
Dale v. Poston, 548 F.3d 563 (7th Cir.2008) (risk and protection standards in deliberate indifference analysis)
Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485 (7th Cir.2002) (grievance exhaustion timing requirements)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison official duty to protect inmates from known risks)
Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.2008) (evidence standards for protections claims)
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.1998) (linking defendants to constitutional claims requires more than name in caption)
Rodriguez v. Briley, 403 F.3d 952 (7th Cir.2005) (hunger-strike constitutional implications)