Gomez v. Randall et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/9/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RAUL CHE GOMEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
I.D.O.C. DIRECTOR M.P. RANDALL, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No.

11 C 1793

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Last December 23 this Court dismissed the pro se 42 U.S.C.
§19831 Complaint that Menard Correctional Center inmate Raul
Gomez (“Gomez”) had then filed.

Because that dismissal was

occasioned by Gomez’ failure to have demonstrated satisfaction of
the Section 1997e(a) exhaustion-of-administrative remedies
precondition, the dismissal was made without prejudice.

But on

March 15 Gomez tried again with a new Section 1983 Complaint, and
just a week later this Court appointed a member of this District
Court’s trial bar, William Barnett, Jr., to represent him pro
bono publico.
Attorney Barnett, after having conducted a careful
investigation of Gomez’ claim, has just filed a motion for leave
to withdraw as Gomez’ counsel pursuant to LR 83.38.

As the

motion to withdraw states in relevant part, on the basis of
attorney Barnett’s in-person interview of Gomez and his review of

1

All further references to Title 42’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”

Section 1983 caselaw:
3. Plaintiff has alleged injuries arising out of
his being struck by a stray pellet from a shotgun fired
by a correctional officer to quell a fight between two
inmates at the Stateville Correctional Center, and the
subsequent failure to provide him with immediate
medical attention, and has brought this action for
damages in compensation for those injuries.
*

*

*

5. In Counsel’s opinion, Plaintiff’s claims are
not warranted under existing law and cannot be
supported by good faith argument for extension,
modification or reversal of existing law.
6. Plaintiff was injured by the negligent action
of a correctional officer who has not been identified.
He removed the pellet himself shortly thereafter. He
was not given immediate medical attention by the
unidentified medical technician on the cell block at
the time, but he was in fact treated several days
later, and has not suffered any significant aggravation
of the initial wound which has since healed.2 None of
the named defendants appear to have had any involvement
in his injuries.
7. The statute of limitations ran on May 16,
2011. Neither counsel nor Plaintiff were able to
identify either the correctional officer who fired the
shotgun or the medical technician who failed to treat
him initially prior to May 16, 2011. Accordingly,
there does not appear to remain any defendant who can
be found liable for Plaintiff’s injury.
All of that being the case, attorney Barnett’s motion to
withdraw is granted.

Gomez does not have a viable Section 1983

2

[Footnote by this Court] Under the circumstances
described in that paragraph, Gomez cannot successfully invoke the
“serious medical needs standard established by Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) for Section 1983 purposes.
2

claim, and this action is dismissed.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

August 9, 2011

3