Robinson v. Harrington, 3:13-cv-00489

Background

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Robinson, an inmate at Menard, sues multiple prison officials for alleged constitutional violations.
Robinson claims severe allergies, sinus problems, migraines, toothaches, nasal congestion, and loss of smell, with ongoing allegedly ineffective treatment.
He alleges a toe fungus treated unsuccessfully for nine months, with staff telling him nothing more could be done.
He contends a false disciplinary ticket on December 14, 2010 was retaliatory and resulted in mulitple days in segregation.
He further alleges deliberate delay of his legal mail causing a dismissed Seventh Circuit appeal, and requests protective custody, which were denied; he seeks damages, injunctive relief for medical treatment, and transfer.
The court conducts initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, determines some claims require amendment or severance, and plans to dismiss several counts while allowing Count 1 to proceed with amendments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deliberate indifference to medical needs	Robinson asserts ongoing ineffective treatment for allergies and toe fungus.	Defendants argue treatment may be negligent but not constitutional violation; require more development.	Colorable Eighth Amendment claim; requires amendment naming treating doctor; unknown doctor added; Walls dismissed.
Retaliation/false disciplinary charge	Charge filed in retaliation for grievances against officers.	Inadequate alleging of responsible officers; unrelated to Count 1; severable.	Count 2 severed into a new case; plaintiff may pursue against proper defendant by amending in the new action.
Delay of legal mail/denial of access to courts	Deliberate delay caused dismissal of a civil appeal.	Need to identify party responsible; unrelated to Counts 1 and 2.	Count 3 severed into a new case; plaintiff may pursue access-to-courts claim by amending in the new action.
Denial of protective custody	Requests for protection were denied amid threats; seeks protection.	Discretionary placement and potential safety concerns; no showing of a constitutional violation.	Count 4 dismissed without prejudice.
Mishandling of grievances	Defendants failed to satisfactorily resolve complaints; supervisory liability alleged.	Grievance responders not personally liable; no due-process liberty interest in grievance procedures; no supervisory liability.	Count 5 dismissed with prejudice; no claim stated; several defendants dismissed without prejudice.
Overall procedural posture and remedies			Amended complaint required limited to Count 1; add Unknown Party Doctor and Harrington; severed counts proceed in new cases; remaining procedural steps outlined.

Key Cases Cited

Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference can persist through ineffective treatment or lack of specialist referral)
Kelley v. McGinnis, 899 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1990) (inmate may prevail if defendant knowingly provided ineffective treatment)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care in prisons)
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001) (personal responsibility required; no respondeat superior liability; no liability for mere supervisory status)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants severed into separate actions)
Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1987) (access-to-courts claim requires showing actual detriment to specific case)