On July 20, 1979, an inmate of the Logan Correction center in Lincoln, Illinois, filed a lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the assistant warden, other prison officials, and members of the parole board in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The ...
read more >
On July 20, 1979, an inmate of the Logan Correction center in Lincoln, Illinois, filed a lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the assistant warden, other prison officials, and members of the parole board in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleged that as a black inmate, he received unequal treatment in disciplinary proceedings in violation of his due process rights and that defendants prevented his use of the law library in violation of his First Amendment rights. Five days later he amended his complaint to also allege race discrimination in job assignments. Approximately six weeks later, he amended his complain a third time, alleging that he was denied proper medical care for a cold. The suit sought injunctive relief and monetary damages.
On November 12, 1979, the district court (Judge James Waldo Ackerman) granted defendants' motion for summary judgment holding that prison officials had not inhibited plaintiff's access to the courts, were not deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and that the general claims of racial discrimination were not subject to judicial scrutiny as alleged. In addition, he dismissed the complaint as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
On September 23, 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Judge Walter Joseph Cummings) affirmed the district court's ruling after the plaintiff appealed. Gibson v. McEvers, 631 F.2d 95 (7th Cir. 1980) (originally reported without opinion at 636 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1980)). After detailing its affirmance, the appellate court also noted that at that time, the Logan Correctional Center was subject to a consent decree entered between the state of Illinois and the Department of Justice to eliminate racial discrimination. The court found it significant that Judge Ackerman presided over that decree, and found no discrimination in this case.
The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the September 23, 1980 appellate court opinion.Sherrie Waldrup - 03/30/2006