Haywood v. Illinois Department of Corrections Director et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 64 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds in favor of Adrian Feinerman and against John D. Haywood. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Haywood shall take nothing from this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 7/2/2020. (klh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN D. HAYWOOD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADRIAN FEINERMAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-00021-GCS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Now before the Court is Defendant Feinerman’s motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 64, 65, 70). Specifically, Feinerman argues that Haywood’s complaint is devoid of
any allegation that Feinerman played any role in Haywood’s care after 2008; thus,
Haywood’s lawsuit against him is untimely as Haywood filed suit against him in 2018.
Haywood, through court assigned counsel, opposes the motion merely contending that
the Court should disregard Feinerman’s affidavit. (Doc. 69). Based on the reasons
delineated below, the Court rejects Haywood’s argument and the Court GRANTS the
motion for summary judgment.
On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff John D. Haywood, an inmate housed at the Lawrence

Page 1 of 5

Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”). (Doc. 1). On March 1, 2018, the Court screened
Haywood’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and severed his claims into several
counts, with the following claims surviving review:
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Feinerman
for taking away Plaintiff’s braces and wheelchair at Menard in November
2007; and
Count 4: First Amendment retaliation claim against Feinerman for taking
away Plaintiff’s wheelchair after Plaintiff complained to the Warden about
Feinerman taking his braces upon his arrival at Menard in November 2007.
FACTS1
The following facts are taken from the record and presented in the light most
favorable to Haywood, the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in
his favor. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009).
The events surrounding this lawsuit occurred at Menard. Haywood is an inmate
within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and currently housed at
Lawrence. Feinerman last provided treatment to Haywood in 2008 and stopped
providing treatment to inmates at Menard in 2009. Feinerman further stopped providing
services to IDOC inmates at other facilities in January 2010. Haywood filed this lawsuit
on January 3, 2018.
In his opposition, Haywood does not dispute the facts submitted by Feinerman nor did Haywood
present his own set of facts. He merely asserts that Feinerman’s affidavit is not supported by any evidence
in the record.

1

Page 2 of 5

LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Doe, 743 F.3d 1101, 1105 (7th Cir. 2014)(citing FED. R. CIV. PROC.
56(a)). Accord Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 994 (7th Cir. 2012). A genuine issue of
material fact remains “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Accord
Bunn v. Khoury Enterpr., Inc., 753 F.3d 676, 681-682 (7th Cir. 2014).
In assessing a summary judgment motion, the district court views the facts in the
light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving
party. See Anderson, 699 F.3d at 994; Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011).
As the Seventh Circuit has explained, and as required by Rule 56(a), “we set forth the
facts by examining the evidence in the light reasonably most favorable to the non-moving
party, giving [him] the benefit of reasonable, favorable inferences and resolving conflicts
in the evidence in [his] favor.” Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756 F.3d 542, 544 (7th
Cir. 2014). The Court’s role at summary judgment is not to evaluate the weight of
evidence, to judge witness credibility, or to determine the truth of the matter. Instead, the
Court is to determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists. See Nat’l Athletic Sportwear
Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008).

Page 3 of 5

It is well established that the statute of limitations and tolling laws in the state
where the alleged injury occurred are applied in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1998)(citations omitted).
The alleged injury at issue occurred in Illinois, and as such, Illinois law controls. Illinois
prescribes that actions for personal injury must be commenced within two years after the
cause of action accrued. Accordingly, this case is governed by a two-year statute of
limitations period. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. See also Ashafa, 146 F.3d at 461 (noting that
“appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 cases filed in Illinois is two years . . . .”).
A Section 1983 claim arising from deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious
medical needs accrues when the plaintiff knows of his physical injury and its cause. See
Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 768 (7th Cir. 2013). Ongoing violations of a plaintiff’s
constitutional rights may delay the accrual date under the continuing violation doctrine.
See Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 2001). But a defendant’s continuing
violation of a plaintiff’s rights can delay the start of the limitations period only “for as
long as the defendant[] had the power to do something about [the plaintiff’s] condition.”
Id. at 318. Simply put, if a defendant leaves his or her employment at the correctional
facility where a plaintiff is incarcerated, the statute of limitations begins to run. See, e.g.,
Wilson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 932 F.3d 513, 518 (7th Cir. 2019)(stating that “[t]he
date of the defendant’s departure thus marks the last possible time when the claim might
have accrued.”) See also Heard v. Elyea, No. 12-3397, 525 Fed. Appx. 510, 511-512 (7th Cir.
June 3, 2013)(noting two year limitations period under Illinois law and holding that cause
Page 4 of 5

of action against medical director due to failure to treat hernia in a timely manner accrued
when the director retired and was no longer in a position to help or harm the inmate).
Clearly, Haywood’s claims against Feinerman are untimely. Based on the
allegations in the complaint and Feinerman’s affidavit, Feinerman was last involved with
Haywood’s care at Menard in February or March 2008. Furthermore, Feinerman stopped
providing medical care to inmates at Menard in 2009 and ceased providing services to
IDOC inmates at other facilities in 2010. Here, Haywood did not file suit against
Feinerman until 2018 – a period of almost nine years after Feinerman was in a position to
help or harm Haywood at Menard and almost eight years after Feinerman stopped
providing medical care to all IDOC inmates. This is well beyond the accrual period and
the subsequent running of the statute of limitations in this case. Haywood’s claims
against Feinerman are thus time-barred.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Feinerman’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 64). The Court finds in favor of Adrian Feinerman and against John D.
Haywood. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same. Haywood shall take nothing from this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
Magistrate Judge
Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2020.07.02
10:47:44 -05'00'
______________________________

Date: July 2, 2020.

GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5