## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2962 R AUL C. G OM EZ, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. M ICHAEL P. R ANDLE , I
. D
. O
. C
. Director, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 11 C1793

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 3, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 14, 2012

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . In a pro seco m pla i nt fi l ed on M ar ch1 5, 2 01 1, Ra ulC. Gom ez a l l eg ed va r i o us F i r sta nd Eighth A m endm ent v i olat ions by the I l l i noi s Depart

m ent o fCor re cti ons ( “I DO C”) and Sta tev i l l e Cor re cti onal Center pri son offi ci al s un der 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983. The di str i ct c ou rtap p oin te d co u n se l for G om ez an d allow ed h im t o p r o c e e d in f

orm a paup er is
. Gom ez’ s a tto rneym et w i th hi m i n pe r s o n o n o ne o c c a s i o n and the r e a ft e r fi l e d a2 N o. 11

- 2962

m otion to w ithd raw as cou ns el. In th at m otio n , t he attorney sta ted hi s bel i ef that Gom ez’ s cl ai m s w er e e i ther bar re d by the stat u te of l i m i tat i ons ornotwarra nted und erexi sting l aw . The di str i ct cou rt , l ar gel y r el yi ng o n c ou nsel ’ s a ffi rm ati ons, gr anted the m oti on t o w i thdraw and dism i sse d G om ez ’ s ca se. Because w e fi nd that th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al w as p re m at u r e a s t o a ll but o ne o fthe defe nd ants, we affi rm i n pa rt a nd r eve rs e i n p a r tth e j u d g me n to fth e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta n d r emand f o r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I. B ACK GR OUN D G o me z a l l e g e s th e f o l l o win g f a c t s , w h i c h w e a s s u me to be tru e fo r p u rp os es oft h is a p p ea l. M arion v. Co lum bia Cor r . Inst
. , 5 59 F. 3d 693, 69 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Gom ez w as an i nm ate atS tat evi l l e Cor re cti onalCentero n M ay 16, 2009 , wh en he w as w ounded i n the ri ght upper ar m by o ne o fthe p e l l e t s fi r e d fr o m a 12- g a ug e s ho t g un . On th at d ay atap p ro x im at ely 9:45 a .m ., as G om ez w ait ed in fr o nto fhi s ce l l( #9 22 ) t o b e k ey ed i n b y Co r r ec ti o ns O ffi cerDun l ap, a fi ght b ro ke out between two unarm ed i nm ate s bythe sta i rca se nearcel l#9 26. S er gea nt Pal m er and Office r D u nl ap att em pted to bre ak up the fi ght. Du ring thi s e ffor t, an unknown co rr ecti ons offi cerwith a 1 2-g au ge s h ot gu n fired tw o s h ot s fro m th e c at w alk i nt o the i nma t e po pu l a t i o n. Go mez , hi s c e l l mat e , a nd an i nm ate i n #92 3 were hi t bypel l ets fro m thes e tw o shot s. A fterthe fi ght was co ntai ned, Palm er a nd Dun l ap key ed the i nm ate s ba ck in to t hei r cel l s. Gom ez showed hi s wo un d, wh i c h wa s b r ui s e d a nd b l e e di ng, t o Du nl a p,N o. 11

- 2962 3

w h o a ss u re d G om ez h e w o u l d g e t so m eo n e t o loo k a t h is ar m . Du nl ap re turned approxi m ate l y fi ve m i nute s la ter wi tha n un k no wn m ed i ca lt ec hni ci an . The medi ca lt ec hni ci an w anted to tr eat Gom ez i n the heal th care u n it but Dunlap r efused to m ove Gom ez b ecause the pri son wa s o n l o c k do wn. Ins t e a d, Go mez a s k e d the m edi cal techni ci an i fhe c ou ld b e tre ate d i n hi s ce l land she re s po nd e d tha ts he wo ul d b r i ngh i m some med i c a ls up pli es. The m edi calte chnic i an neve r retu rn ed w i th these suppli es. A t a pp ro xi m ate l y 2 : 00 p. m . thatsa m e day, Gom ez saw Pal m erand aga i n re q u ested m edi calsuppli es. Pa l merb e l i e v e d the me di c a l te c hn i c i a n ha d a l r e a dy p ro vid ed th os e s u p p lies to G om ez , b u t a gr ee d to ca ll th e me d i c a ls t af fa g a i n . At5 : 3 6 p . m. , th e s a me u n k n o wn m edi calte c h n ici an was passi ng o ut m edi cati ons to i nm ate s when she passe d G om ez’ s ce l l

. Gom ez as ked ab o uthi s m edi ca ls uppl i es a nd sh e re spo nde d tha t he w ou ld b e o kay

. A ccor ding to Gom ez’ s g ri evance , wh i ch w as att ached to hi s co m pla i nt, the m edi calte chnic i an to ld G om ez sh e w an te d to h elp h im bu t s h e w as to ld bys ta ffs ec ur i tyno t to do cumenta ny m ed icalt r ea tment f orgunshotwoun ds f orany ofthe i nm ate s. Gom ez re quested hernam e but she m er el y l aughed and w al ked aw ay m um bl i ng. Real i zi ng that no m edi calsuppli es w er e o n thei r w ay, Gomez t o o ki t upo n h i m se l ft o was h h i s wou nd a nd e x c i s e a s ma l ls ma s h e d p i e c e o fme t a lf r o m hi s a r m. H e t h en w ra p p ed h is w ou n d w ith a to rn p ie c e o f h is be d s he et
. Go m ez a ss er ts tha t he w as st i l li n pa i n a nd4 N o. 11

- 2962 bl eedi ng atthi s ti m e, so he w ro te an em er gencygr i evance to the war den

. Fou r day s late r, Go m ez w as treate d i n th e hea lth care uni t. H i s wound was pho to g r aph ed, c l ea ne d, a nd b an daged. G om ez al so re cei ved a tet anus sho t. The docto r w ho t re ate d G om ez expressed conce rn that Gom ez w as not broug ht t o the h ealth ca re un it the d ay of his inj ury t o p r e v e n ti n fe c t i o n . G o me z ’ s a r m wa s x - r a y e d t wo d ays later. A co up l e o fweeks afterr ecei vi ng m ed ica l tr eat m ent, Gomez b el i ev es I DOC Di r ec to r M i ch ae lP. Ra ndl e se nt an i nter nalaff ai rs ( “I A ”) i nvest igat orto m eetwith Gom ez and i nti m i date hi m i nt o dropping hi s g ri evance . The i nv es ti g at o r se ar ch ed Gomez ’ s ce l la nd t o o kthe sh i r t Gomez was wea r ing on the da y o fhi s i nj ur y . The i nvest i ga to r l ate r re turned t o Gom ez’ s ce l land sta ted ther e was no pr oo f t h at the hol e in hi s s hi rtwas caused by a s hotgun pell et. H e then thr eat ened to put Gom ez in segr e g a t ion or have h im trans ferred to M en ard Corr ec ti o na lCe nt er, wher e Gom ez ha d kno wn en emi es . The i nve s t i g a t o r a l s o a s k e d G o mez t o a g r e e t o a p o l y g r a ph ex am i nati on, but Gom ez re fused unle ss the m edi cal te c h n icia n an d D u n lap ag re ed to ta ke on e a s w ell. Gom ez w as pla ced on t ra nsferto M en ard C or re cti onal Center. The day pr i orto hi s s c h ed u l ed tr ansfer, Gom ez to l d a d if fer en t I A i nv es ti g at o r na m ed Tur ne r tha t he woul d no t pur su e hi s g r i ev an ce o r fi l e a l aws ui t i fhe w as al l owed to st ay at St atevi l l e. Turnerto l d him i t was “t oo lat e.” G om ez w as tra n sfe rre d to M en a r d an d is curr entl y incarc er ate d ther e.N o. 11

- 2962 5 Gom ez’ s e m er gencygr i evance w as fir st add re sse d on M ay 21, 20 09, bythe w ar den, w h o deter m i ned that Gome z ’ s c o n d i t i o n wa s n o ta n e me r g e n c y b e c a u s e he had al re ady be en tr eat ed. A ccor dingl y, the gr ieva nce counsel orr esponded to Gom ez’ s g ri evance o n J une 8, 2009 , not i ng, “As sta ted bythe W ar den bel ow, you have been tr eat ed by the he al th ca re u n it an d I A wil lf ol l ow up. The r e is no j us ti fi ca ti o n fo r a ny mone ta r y c o m pen sat i on. ” ( Com pl. at11
. ) On J uly9, 20 09, Gri evance Offi cerM ar gar et Thom pson r evi ew ed Gom ez’ s g ri evance a nd r eco m m ended that i t be deni ed. T h i s deci si on w as approve d by t h e Ch i efA dm i ni str ati ve Offi cero n J uly13, 20 09. Gom ez l acks addit i onaldocum entati on be yo nd thi s date bec ause at som e point he w as t r a ns fe r r e d t o P o nt i a c Co r r e c t i o na lCe nt e r o n s e gr ega ti on s tatu s for an unr el ate d i nci dent and pri son offi ci al s l osthi s co rr espondence bo x . H e ass er ts that he wrote to the A dm i ni st ra tive Revi ew Boar d tw i ce re questi ng a copy o fthei r re sponse but di d not r ecei ve i t. Go mez fi l e d s ui to n M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , a g a i ns tI DOC Direc torRandle , S er gea nt Pal m er, Cor re cti ons Offi cer Du n l a p , a n d th r e e u n k n o wnd e fen dan t s . T h e s e u n k n o wn defe nd ants i ncl ud e the S tat evi l l e warden, the m ed ical techni ci an, and the cor re cti ons offi cerwh o fi re d at th e i nm at es fr o m the c atwal k

. Go m ez ’ s co m p l aint, c o nstr u ed lib er al l y, as ser ts cl ai m s under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 f orexce ssi ve f or ce, del iber ate i nd i ffer ence, and re tal i ati on in v iola ti on o fthe Fi rs t a nd Ei ghth Am endm ents. Gom ez re quested co m pen sat or y a nd puniti ve dam age s fr o m e ac h de fend an t, a s wel la s l eg alc o st s, t er m i na ti o n, and a ny add i ti onal re l i ef deem ed proper by th e d i str i ct6 N o. 11

- 2962

c o ur t
. Go mez a l s o a pp l i e d fo r l eave to p r o c e e d i n f o r ma paup er is an d req u es te d lega l co u n se l. On M ar ch 22, 20 11, the dist ri ct c ourtappoi nted W i l l i am A
. Barnet t, J r. , to r epres en t Gom ez. A st atus hear i ng was h eld o n M ay 10, 20 11. On A ugust 8 , 20 11, Barnet t fi l ed a m o t i o n t o wi thd r a w a s Go mez ’ s a t t o r ne y . In tha t m o tion, Bar ne tts ta te d tha t he ha d wi th dr awn fr o m the ac ti ve pr ac ti ce o fl aw a nd wou l d wi thdr aw fr o m the tr i albaro fthe dist ric t cour t o nce r el i eve d ofhi s a pp oi ntm ent a s Gom ez’ s a tto rney . Barnet t a l so asser te d that he i nter vi ew ed Gom ez i n pers on, r evi ew ed the case law un d er 42 U
. S. C . § 1 9 8 3, an d beli eved that “Plaintiff’s cl ai m s a re n ot w ar ra nted und erexi sting l aw and cannot be s uppo r ted b y g o o d f ai tha r g um en t f o r e xt en si o n, m o di fi ca ti o n o r r ev er sal of e xi st i ngl aw. ” ( M o t. t o W i th

draw at2. ) S peci fi cal l y, Barnet t r epor ted to the cour t: Plaint i ff was i nj ur ed by th e ne g l i g en t ac ti o n of a cor r e c t i o na lo ffi c e r wh o h a s n o tb e e n i de nt i fi e d. H e rem oved the p ell et him self sh o r t ly th ereafter. H e w as not gi ven i m m edi ate m edi calat tenti on bythe uni den ti fi ed m edi ca lt ec hni ci ano n the cel lbl ock a t the ti m e, but he was i n f act tr eat ed se ve ra l d ay s late r, an d h as n otsu ffer ed an y s ign ifican ta g g r a v a t i o n o fthe i ni t i a lwo un d wh i ch has s i nce hea l ed. N one ofthe n am ed defe nd ants appear t o have had a ny i nvol vem ent in hi s inj uri es. The sta tute of l i m i tat i ons ra n on M ay 16 , 2 011. N either cou ns el nor Plaintiff w ere able to i d en tify ei therthe cor re cti onalo ffi cerw h o fi re d the s hotgun orthe m edi calte chnic i an w h o fail ed to tr eatN o. 11

- 2962 7 hi m i nitia l l y pr i orto M ay 16, 20 11. A ccor dingl y, th er e do es no t appe art o r emai n a ny de fen dan t w ho ca n be f ound li abl e forPl ai nti ff’ s inj ury. Id. The f o l l o wi ngda y, the di st r i ctc ou rt gr an te d the m ot ion to w ith d ra w an d d ism iss ed G om ez ’s com p lain t. In doi ng so , the dist ri ct c ourtquote d fo ur par agr aphs of Barnett ’ s m oti on, note d that und er these ci rcum sta nces Gom ez could not m eetthe sta nd ar ds est abl i shed by E st el lev. Ga m ble, 42 9 U.S
. 97( 1976 ) , and hel d, “A l lo f th atb eingthe c as e, a tt o r ne y Ba r ne tt’ s m o ti o n t o wi th

d ra w is gra n te d . G om ez d oe s n oth av e a via b le S e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 c l a i m, a n d th i s a c t i o n i s d i s mi s s e d

. ” ( M e m. Or de r a t2

- 3
. ) Go mez t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II. A NA LYSIS We r e v i e w deno vo a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa lo fa pri soner ’ s co m pla i nt duri ng the scr eeni ng pro cess co nd ucted u n d er 28 U .S .C . § 19 15 A
. O rtiz v. D o w ney, 56 1 F
. 3d 664, 669 (7th C i r. 20 09)
. A pp l yi ng the sa m e s tandard used f o r Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) di smi ss al s, we co ns true the c om p lai nt ina ligh t m o s t fav or ab le t o G om ez an d ac c ep t a ll w ellp led fac tu al a lleg at ion s a s t ru e. A rnett v . We b ster, 65 8 F. 3d 74 2, 75 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. Gom ez’ s co m pla i nt as ser ts th r ee c l ai m s f o r r el i efa nd we addr es s ea cho ne i n tur n.

A
. Exces si ve Forc e G om ez’s fi rst c la im all eges th at th e un iden tified corr ec ti o ns o ffi ce r who fired two r o unds fr o m a s ho tgun8 N o. 11

- 2962

A p lain tiff’ s lack of kn ow led g e a b ou t a d efend an t’ s ide ntity 1 i s no ta “m i s t ake ” wi thi n the m ea ni ng of F eder al Rul e of C iv il Pro ced u re 15 (c) such tha t the p lain tiff cou ld am en d his c om pl ai nt out s i de the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per iod up on le a rn in g th e d efe n d a n t’s i d e n tit y . S ee Baskin v. C i ty of D es P l ai n es , 138 F. 3d 701, 704 ( 7th Cir

. 1 9 9 8 ). Accordingly, once the s t atut e ofl i m i t at i ons pe ri od e xp ires , Gom ez c ann otam en d hi s c om pl ai ntt o s ubs t i t ut e a ne w party i n the pl ac e of

“ Jo h n D o e.” i nto the inm ate popula ti on use d excess i ve for c e in vi ol ati o n o fthe Ei g hth Am en dm en t’ s ba n o n c r ue la nd u n u su al p u n ish m en t. T h e d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at th is cl ai m was bar re d by the st atute o f l i m i tat i ons because G om ez fail ed to i d en tify the un kn ow n offi cer before th e s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s r a n o n Ma y 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 , e x a c t l y t wo y ears afte r Go m ez ’ s i nj ur y o cc ur r ed. Al th o ug h the 1 dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectly no te d that the sta tute ofl i m i tatio n s fo r a § 19 83 cla im in Illin o i s is tw o ye ar s, see D o m ing uez v. Hend ley, 545 F.3d 585 , 588 (7th C ir. 2008), it fa iled to rec og n ize t h at “t h e lim ita tio n s p er iod is tol l ed w hi l e a pri sone r com ple tes the adm in i str ati ve gr i evance pro cess . ” Wa l ke rv. Sh e ahan , 52 6 F
. 3d 973, 97 8 (7th C ir. 2008). I n thi s ca se, Gom ez fi l ed hi s e m er gencygr i evance o n M ay 16, 20 09. Thus, the sta tute ofl i m ita tio ns was to l l ed fr o m t ha td a t e u n t i lth e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s w a s c o mple te. U nfo rtunatel y, we cannot asce rt ain t h i s l att erdate because Gom ez no lon gerhas a co py ofthe A dm i ni str ative Rev ie w Boa rd ’s final dec isi on. Bec au se of this un certainty , the d ist r ict cou rt erred in d ism issi ng Go m ez’s excess i ve f or ce c l ai m as unti m el y.N o. 11

- 2962 9 M or eo v e r , w e b elie ve G om ez ’s c om p lain t p ro p er ly st at es a c laim for re lief. “[W ]h en ev er p ris on of f i c ials sta nd acc used of usi ng exce ssi ve physi calf or ce in vi ol ati o n o fthe Cr ue la nd Unus ua lPun i sh m en ts Cl au se , the c or e jud icia l inq u iry is .
. . w h et h er forc e w as a p p l ied in a g oo d-f ai th eff or t t o m aintain orr est or e di sci pline, o r ma l i c i o us l y a nd s a di s t i c a l l y t o c a us e h a r m . ” H uds on v. M cM i l l i an , 50 3 U.S
. 1, 6- 7 ( 1992 )
. Thus, a § 1 983 pla i nti ffm ust e stab l i sh thatpri son offi ci al s a cted want o nl y ; ne g l i g en ce o r g r o ss ne g l i g en ce i s no t en o ug h. Ha rper v . Alb ert, 400 F.3d 1 0 52 , 106 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). In thi s ca se, Gom ez al l ege d that the uni denti fied o ffi cero n th e c a t wa l kfi r e d t wo s h o t g u n r o u n d s a ti n ma t e s who w er e n otin vo lve d in t h e figh t a n d loc at ed fou r c ells aw ay. In additi on, Gom ez ass er ts th at the tw o i nm ate s i nv o l ve d i n the fightwer e una r m ed an d Dunl ap an d Pa l m er we r e ab l e t o b r e a ku p th e fi g h t
. C o n s t r u i ng Gom ez’ s pro seco m pla i nt l iber al l y, there ar e e nough f actua l al l ega ti ons to i nfe r that the uni denti fi ed offi cer acte d m al i ci ou sly i n usi ng deadl y for ce a gainst inm ate s w ho were not in vo lve d i n the ongo i ng al ter cati on. A cc o r di ng l y, thi s c l a i m was p r e matur e l y di s mi s s e d.

B
. D el ibe rateIndiff

erence N ex t, G om ez asse rts tha t prison offici als w ere d eliberate l y ind i ffer ent t o hi s s eri ous m edi calneeds i n vi ol ati on ofthe Eighth A m endm ent. The di str i ct cou rt di sm i sse d th i s cl ai m forthr ee r ea so ns : ( 1) Go m ez ’ s al l eg at i o ns wer e i ns uffi ci en t to meetthe s ta nda r d s etf o r thi n E st el le v. G am ble, 42 9 U.S
. 97( 1976 ) ; ( 2) none ofthe nam ed de-10 N o. 11

- 2962 fen dan ts wer e i nv o l ve d i n Go m ez’s inj ur i es ; a nd ( 3) a ny cl ai m ag ai nst a n unnam ed defendant w as bar re d by th e st atut e of l i m i ta ti o ns . As e xpl aine d i n the pr ev i o us sect i on, we rej ect the di str i ct c ou rt ’s sta tute ofl i m i tati ons ra ti onal e. A pri so n er ’ s cl ai m f ordel iber ate i nd i ffer ence m ust es tabl i sh“ ( 1) a n obj ecti ve l y s er i o us medi ca lc o ndi ti o n; an d (2) an o f ficia l’s d elib er at e in d iffer en c e t o th at co n d iti on. ” A rne tt, 658 F. 3d at 750. Del iber ate i nd i ffer ence i s p r o v e n b y d e mo n s t r a t i n gth a ta p r i s o n o ffi c i a lkn o ws ofa substa nti alr isk ofhar m to an inm ate and “ei ther acts o r f ai l s t o act i n dis re gar d ofthatr i sk. ” Id. at75 1. D elaying treatm en t m ay con stitut e d eliberat e in d iffer ence i fsuch del ay “exace rba ted the i nj ury orunnecessar i l y pr ol onge d an i nm ate ’ s pai n. ” M c Gowa n v . Hul ick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) ( cit ing Este ll e, 4 2 9 U
. S. at 104-0 5)
. “Even a few days’ del ay i n addressing a seve re l y pai nfu l but re adily t re atab l e co nd i ti on s uffi ces to sta te a cl ai m of del iber ate indiffer ence. ” Sm i t h v
. K nox C nty. Jail , 666 F.3d 103 7, 1040 ( 7th Cir. 2012). W e fi nd that, a t thi s e ar l y s tag e in the proce edi ngs, Gomez ’ s co m pl ainta ss er ts s uffi ci en t f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns to s ta te a c l ai m f o r r el i efunde r the Ei g hth Am en dm en t a nd E st el le

. F i r st, Go m ez ha s su ffi ci en tly pl ed th athe w as suffer i ng fro m an obj ecti vel y s er i ous m edi calco n d iti o n. “ A m edi cal nee d i s co ns i der ed su ffi ci en tly s er i o us i fthe i nm ate ’ s co nd i ti on h as bee n dia gnos ed by a physi ci an as m andati ng tr eat m ent o r i s s o obvi ous that even a l a y p e r s o n w ou ld p erceive th e nee d f or a doc tor’s att enti on. ” R o e v. E lyea , 631 F .3d 8 43, 85 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)N o. 11

- 2962 11 ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s an d p unc tu at i o n o m i tt ed)

. The m e d i c al c on d itio n n ee d n otbe life-th re at en in g; “itco u ld be a c o ndi ti on tha t woul d r es ul t i n fur th ers i g ni fi ca nt inj u ry or u n n ec es sa ry an d w an to n in f l i c t ion of p ain if not tr eat ed. ” Id. ( q uot i ng Gayt on v. M cCoy, 59 3 F. 3d 610, 6 2 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 01 0 ) )
. He r e , Go mez a l l e g e s h e s uffe r e d a sh o tgun wo und a nd s ho r tly the r ea fte r e xpe r i en ce d e xcess i ve brui si ng and bl eedin g ar ound the woun d. Gom ez ass er ts that he was i n pai n and b el i eve d the wound was be co m i ngi nfec ted

. I n a ddi ti o n, Dunl ap, Pa l m er, a nd th e m edi calte chnic i an al lbel i eve d G om ez needed tr eat
m ent s hor tl y fol l owing hi s inj ury. Thi s is e n ough t o pl e a d a s e r i o us me di c a ln e e d. G om ez ha s also suffi cient ly a lle ged de liberat e ind ifferen c e, at lea st w ith res p ec t t o th e u n kn ow n m ed ica l te c h n ic ian an d Se rg ea n t Pa lm er . T h e m ed ica l te c h n icia n t o ld Gom ez that she would br i ng hi m m edi calsupplies t o tr eathi s inj ury, bu t he neverr ecei ved thes e s up pli es. Palm er b ecam e a w ar e o fGom ez’ s inj ury w hi l e he w as on rou nd s and , althou gh he agreed to c he ck on Go m ez’s m edi calsup p lies , ther e i s no ev i dence thathe c ar ri ed out that prom i se. Thus, despi te these o ffi ci al s’ kno w l edge of h is inj u rie s, G om ez d id n otrec eiv e t re at m en t u n til f our days l ate r. A nd ev en tho ugh this d el ay did not e xa c e rb a t e G o me z ’ s i nj u r y, h e e x p e r i e n c e d p r o l o n g e d, u n n ec es sa ry p ain as a re s u l t o fa re ad ily tr ea ta b le c on d itio n . SeeSm ith , 66 6 F.3d at 10 40
. W e h a v e p r ev iou sly u p h eld sim ilar cla im s fo r re lief. Se e, e . g. , Rod rigu ez v. Plymouth Am b ul anc eSe r v. , 577 F.3d 8 1 6 , 8 32 (7th C ir. 20 09 ) (p ris on er co m p lain in g of s ev er e p ain fr o m h is IV w as n ottre at ed for fou r d ay s); E dw a rds v . Sny der, 47 8 F
. 3d12 N o. 11

- 2962 82 7, 83 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (p ris on er w h o d islo c at ed h is fi ng er w as no t treated f or tw o da ys); C o o per v . Ca sey, 97 F
. 3d 91 4, 9 16

- 17 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( pr i so ne r s be at ena nd m ac ed by p ris on gu ar d s w er e n ottre a t e d u n til th e fo ll owing day)

. A t thi s s ta ge i n the proce edi ngs, Gom ez has a l l ege d enough to es tabl i sh del iber ate i nd i ffer ence a s t o P a l mer a nd the un k no wn med i c a lt e c hn i c i a n. Ac c o r di ng l y, thi s c l a i m was a l s o p r e matur e l y di s mi s s e d. An y c l a i m a g ai ns tC o r r e c t i o n s O ffi c e r D u n l a p , h o we v e r, w a s p r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d

. A f t e r D u n l a p fi r s tb e c a me aw ar e o f G om ez ’s inj u r y , h e re tu rn ed ap p ro x im at ely fi ve min ut es l at erwi tha medi ca lt ec hn ic i an . W he n the m edi ca lt ec hni ci anr eque st ed to t ak e Gomez t o the heal th car e uni t, Dun l ap re fused beca use the pri son w as on l ock dow n. The m edi calte chnic i an, i n Du nl ap’s pre se nc e , a s s ur e d Go mez tha t s he wo ul d b r i ng med i c a lsup pli es to hi s ce l l

. Dun l ap and the m edi calte chnic i an then l eft the ar ea tog ether

. These al l ega ti ons do not est abl i sh thatDun l ap acte d orf ai l ed to act in d i sr ega rd to G om ez ’s inj u ry . E ve ry th in g in G om ez ’s c om p lain t in d icate s that Dunlap was notdel iber ate l y ind i ffer ent t o Gom ez’ s s er i ous m edi calneeds. T h u s, the del iber ate in d iffer en c e c l a i m a g a i n s t D u n lap w as p ro p er ly dism i sse d and D unlap s houl d no l onger be a party t o thi s ca se.
C. Re t al i at i on Fi nal l y, Gom ez ass er ts a cl ai m o fr eta l i ati on in vi ol ati on ofhi s F i rs t Am endm ent r i ght t o use the pris on g ri evance sy st em . Th e d i s t r ict co u rtfailed to ad d re ss th is c laimN o. 11

- 2962 13 enti re l y in i ts opi ni on d i sm i ssing Gom ez’ s co m pla i nt. A gain, w e fi nd that Gom ez’ s com pla i nt proper l y s tates a claim f or rel ief

. T o p r e v a i l o n h i s F i r s t Am e n d me n t r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, Gom ez m u st show that“( 1) he e ngage d i n acti vi ty protect ed by the Fi rs t A m endm ent; ( 2) he suffer ed a depri vat i o n tha two ul d l i k e l y de t e r F i r s tAmen dme nta c t i v i ty i n the future; and ( 3) the Fi rs t Am endm ent a ctivi ty w as
‘ at l eas t a m oti vating f acto r’ i n t h e Defendants’ deci si on to tak e the r etaliat or y a cti on. ” B ridg es v. G ilbert, 55 7 F.3d 541 , 546 (7th C ir . 2009) ( q uot i ng Woodr uf f v. M as on , 542 F. 3d 545, 55 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 08) )
. Gom ez eas i l y s ati sfi es al lthr ee prongs atthe ple adingst age . First, G o m ez all eges th at he used the p rison’s gr i evance sy ste m to address hi s inj ury and th e lack of tr eat m ent he r ecei ved f ol l owing h is inj ury. “A pri sone r ha s a FirstAm en dm en t r i g htt o make g r i ev an ce s ab o ut condi ti ons ofco nfin em ent. ” Wa tk ins v . Ka sper, 59 9 F
. 3d 7 9 1 , 7 9 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. In a ddi t i o n, G om ez s uffe r e d a depri vati on wh en he w as tr ansfer re d fr om S tat ev i l l e t o M en ar d , w h er e h e h ad kn ow n en em ies . “[A ]n a c t in re tal i ati on f orthe exer ci se ofa constitu tio nal l y pr ote ct ed r i g hti s ac ti o nable un derS ec ti o n 1 98 3 ev eni fthe act, wh en ta ken ford iffer ent r eas ons, would have been p roper. ” Ho w la nd v. K ilqu ist, 8 33 F
. 2d 63 9, 6 44 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87 )
. M oreove r, i t ca n b e i nfer r ed th atthi s puni sh m en t w oul d l i kel y dete r future Fi rs t Am endm ent a cti vi ty. Fi nal l y, Gom ez al l ege s that the I A i nvest i gat or, se nt to i nt i mi da t e h i m byI DOC Di r e c t o r R a nd l e , thr e a t e ne d Gom ez w i th a tr an sfer t o M enar d. Even afterGom ez14 N o. 11

- 2962 i nd i cate d that he would n o lon ger pursue hi s g ri evance or file a law su it if h e c ou ld st ay atSta t e v i l l e , h e w as to ld it w as “too late.” N o other e x p la na tion for G om ez’s t r a ns fe r i s a v a i l ab l e a tthi s e a r l y s t a g e i n the p r o c e edi ngs. T h u s, w e c on c l u d e fro m G om ez ’s c om p lain t t h at h is gr i evance was a m oti vating f acto r i n the defe n d ants’ deci si on t o tr ansferhi m t o M en ar d. Because Gom ez pr o per l y a ss er te d a c l ai m f o r r et al i at i o n, hi s co m pl aint wa s p r e matur e l y di s mi s s e d.

III. C ON CLU SI ON For the for ego i ng r eas ons, we A F F I RM inp ar t, R EV ERSE i n pa r t, a nd R EMA ND this m a t t e r to the d istri ct cou rt for p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is op in ion . C irc u it Rule 36 shal lapply

.

5- 14- 12