Farnam v. Walker et al
Filing
262
OPINION: Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement 240 is denied, without prejudice. By August 10, 2015, Defendant is directed to file Plaintiff's current treatment plan recommended by Plaintiff's cystic fibrosis sp ecialists, along with a notice of compliance that the recommendations are being followed. A status conference is set for August 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video from his prison. Plaintiff's counsel shall appear by vid eo from Jenner & Block. Defense counsel shall appear in person. The clerk is directed to issue a video writ for Plaintiff and his counsel (bridging) for the status on August 19, 2015.(5) The clerk is directed to terminate Defendant Bryant, Andy Ott, Willard Elyea, John Cearlock, Coleen Gray, and Monte Govaia. These defendants were dismissed pursuant to the stipulated order of dismissal 230 . Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/23/2015. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 23 July, 2015 03:08:49 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOSHUA L. FARNAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. SHICKER IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
08-CV-3001
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, represented by Jenner & Block, suffers from cystic
fibrosis and is currently incarcerated in the Hill Correctional
Center.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “renewed motion to enforce
settlement agreement,” which is construed, per Plaintiff’s request,
as a motion to find Defendant in civil contempt for violating the
settlement agreement between the parties. An evidentiary hearing
was held last November, and the parties have filed post-hearing
briefs.
Page 1 of 6
“Civil contempt sanctions are properly imposed for two
reasons: to compel compliance with the court order and to
compensate the complainant for losses caused by contemptuous
actions.” Tranzact Technologies, Inc. v. 1Source Worldsite, 406
F.3d 851, 855 (7th Cir. 2005). However, a finding of civil contempt
is proper only when a party has “‘violated an order that sets forth in
specific detail an unequivocal command from the court.’” Id.
(citation omitted). Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Defendant substantially violated an
unambiguous court order and “failed to take steps to reasonably
and diligently comply with the order.” Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Klerk’s
Plastic Indus., B.V., 525 F.3d 533, 543 (7th Cir. 2008).
The parties debate whether referencing the settlement
agreement in the dismissal order is enough to support these civil
contempt proceedings. The dismissal order incorporated the
settlement agreement by reference, and the settlement agreement
was part of the record on dismissal. (d/e’s 230, 229). The
agreement requires the IDOC to implement the treatment plan for
Plaintiff recommended by Plaintiff’s cystic fibrosis specialists.
(Settlement Agreement, § 1(a)(iii)).
Page 2 of 6
The real issue to the Court, though, is whether the settlement
agreement itself is specific enough to support a finding of civil
contempt on these facts without first issuing an injunction to
Defendant. The Court concludes that the language in the
settlement agreement is too broad to warrant a finding of civil
contempt on these particular facts without first issuing an
injunction that specifically details what Defendant must do.
Plaintiff does not ask for an injunction nor does one appear
warranted at this time.
The Court’s conclusion does not mean that the IDOC followed
the agreement. The IDOC did sporadically violate the settlement
agreement from around the Spring of 2014 to the Fall of 2014, just
not enough to warrant a finding of civil contempt. Some of the
problems with compliance were attributable to the new medical
director at the Illinois River Correctional Center, Dr. Rankin, who at
times admittedly substituted his own professional judgment for the
judgment of the cystic fibrosis specialists. Defendant concedes that
“[t]his resulted in an interruption to plaintiff’s prescribed diet, a
delay in some testing, and the failure to provide the type of knee
braces prescribed to allow plaintiff to exercise.” (d/e 258.) Some of
Page 3 of 6
the problems were attributable to Plaintiff’s transfer out of the
health care unit, which resulted in mistakes by staff unfamiliar
with Plaintiff’s medical care. Some of the problems were caused by
Plaintiff himself after he was transferred out of the health care unit
and into segregation. The Court understands that Plaintiff felt
desperate, but Plaintiff’s behavior (not eating and marking on his
wrists) complicated Plaintiff’s medical treatment. Finally, some of
the problems were attributable to vague recommendations by the
specialists. For example, finding the proper knee brace took some
time, despite good faith efforts, and the specialists did not give
specifics about exactly how much protein and fat should be in
Plaintiff’s diet. Plaintiff has simply not proved by clear and
convincing evidence that Defendant failed to reasonably try to
comply with the agreement or that the specialists’ orders were
unequivocal, unambiguous commands.
Plaintiff’s motion will, therefore, be denied. Plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated in the Illinois River Correctional Center. He is
now in the Hill Correctional Center, according to the IDOC website.
There have been no new filings in this case since the briefs filed
Page 4 of 6
after the contempt hearing. Hopefully this means that Plaintiff’s
medical care has settled into a reliable routine again.
However, procedures will be implemented to ensure that
Plaintiff continues to receive the care he needs. Defendants will file
the current treatment plan, and a status conference will be set
every few months to check on the implementation of that plan.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement (240)
is denied, without prejudice.
(2) By August 10, 2015, Defendant is directed to file Plaintiff’s
current treatment plan recommended by Plaintiff’s cystic
fibrosis specialists, along with a notice of compliance that
the recommendations are being followed.
(3) A status conference is set for August 19, 2015, at 10:00
a.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video from his prison.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear by video from Jenner &
Block. Defense counsel shall appear in person.
(4) The clerk is directed to issue a video writ for Plaintiff
and his counsel (bridging) for the status on August 19,
2015.
(5) The clerk is directed to terminate Defendant Bryant,
Andy Ott, Willard Elyea, John Cearlock, Coleen Gray,
and Monte Govaia. These defendants were dismissed
pursuant to the stipulated order of dismissal (230).
ENTER: 7/23/2015
FOR THE COURT:
Page 5 of 6
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?