Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-15-2023

Case Style:

James Williams, Jr. v. Carissa Luking, et al.

Case Number: 3:21-CV-448

Judge: Gilbert C. Sison

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (St. Clair County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Pro Se Plaintif

Click Here For The Best East St. Louis Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Tim Dugan and Jaclyn Kinkade

Description: East St. Louis, Illinois civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants seeking to compel the production of insurance information.

On May 5, 2021, Plaintiff James Williams Jr., an IDOC inmate currently incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, brought this suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts violations of his Eighth Amendment rights due to Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising from the treatment of his gallstones. Id. On November 23, 2021, the Court completed its preliminary review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed Plaintiff to proceed against Defendants Luking, Welty, Pitman and Wexford.

Defendants subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies along with a Memorandum of Support on August 10, 2022. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion on August 25, 2022. On January 19, 2023, the Court denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 58). The Court found that Plaintiff had properly exhausted grievances in relation to Defendants Luking, Welty, and Pittman's treatment of his gallstones. The Court also found that Plaintiff had exhausted grievances against Defendant Wexford wherein Plaintiff alleged that Wexford had a policy against staffing doctors on Mondays, which he believed caused a delay in the treatment of his gallstones.

Outcome: For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Compel (Doc. 64) is DENIED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case