×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Motion to Dismiss Prisoner’s Soy Diet Suit Denied
A federal district court in Illinois has issued a case management order concerning the Defendant’s motion to dismiss a suit filed against prison dietary products.
The ongoing case concerns the Illinois Department of Corrections’ use of soy products as a main staple in prisoner diets. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which is an affirmative defense.
After hearing evidence from both parties, the court found that the defense’s claim of failure to exhaust is not “more probably true than not true.” The court held that the balance of probabilities did not fall in the defendant’s favor. There was one exception; Plaintiff Kendrick Adams moved to exhaust administrative remedies, therefore, his case was dismissed without prejudice until the exhaustion of administrative remedies. All other plaintiffs in the case are to proceed.
The court denied the defendant’s motion with the one exception and set proceedings for November 7, 2011, stating that “the basic issue in the case is going to be the existence of a scientifically recognized serious medical need that is being ignored.” The parties must be prepared to discuss the most effective and expeditious ways to reach the question raised by the case. See: Harris v. Fluckie, USDC, CD. Illinois, Case No: 07-3225.
The ongoing case concerns the Illinois Department of Corrections’ use of soy products as a main staple in prisoner diets. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which is an affirmative defense.
After hearing evidence from both parties, the court found that the defense’s claim of failure to exhaust is not “more probably true than not true.” The court held that the balance of probabilities did not fall in the defendant’s favor. There was one exception; Plaintiff Kendrick Adams moved to exhaust administrative remedies, therefore, his case was dismissed without prejudice until the exhaustion of administrative remedies. All other plaintiffs in the case are to proceed.
The court denied the defendant’s motion with the one exception and set proceedings for November 7, 2011, stating that “the basic issue in the case is going to be the existence of a scientifically recognized serious medical need that is being ignored.” The parties must be prepared to discuss the most effective and expeditious ways to reach the question raised by the case. See: Harris v. Fluckie, USDC, CD. Illinois, Case No: 07-3225.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Harris v. Fluckie
| Year | 2011 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC, CD. Illinois, Case No: 07-3225. |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |