Manley v. Conn et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DOUGLAS MANLEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 23-cv-3146-DWD
)
PHIL MARTIN, ET AL., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff 	Douglas 	Manley, 	a 	former 	inmate 	of 	the 	Illinois 	Department 	of
Corrections (IDOC) brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. 	On September 19, 2025, the Court
granted 	summary 	judgment 	to 	Defendants 	Evans, 	Eckel, 	Glendenning, 	Stephens,
Switzer, Mason, Steadman, Martin, and Rice. 	The Court also discussed summary
judgment in favor of the two outstanding defendants—Anastacia Goin and Sadiel
Dopaso—under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). The Court directed Plaintiff to file
a response concerning Goin and Dopaso within 30 days, but Plaintiff filed nothing.
Therefore, summary judgment will now be granted for Goin and Dopaso for the reasons
stated in the September 19, 2025, Order at pages 41-43.
Specifically, the Court found upon a review of the comprehensive record provided
by the parties at summary judgment that Goin and Dopaso each had only one personal
encounter with Plaintiff concerning his medical needs. Specifically, Goin interacted with
Case 3:23-cv-03146-DWD Document 135 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff on March 25, 2022, at which time she informed him the prison did not have any
additional catheters to provide him, and he advised he may have enough catheters to last
thru the weekend. 	Though he faults Goin in this lawsuit for allowing him to run out,
there is no indication she knew he actually ran out, thus, allowing him to leave the
medical unit without new supplies on March 25, 2022 was negligence at most. 	As to
Dopaso, Plaintiff alleged that on July 4, 2022, Dopaso was present when Plaintiff was
refused a catheter because he did not bring old catheters to exchange. 	As the Court
discussed 	at 	length 	in 	the 	September 	19th 	Order, 	an 	inmate 	cannot 	engineer 	a
constitutional violation by refusing to follow prison rules pertaining to healthcare. Thus,
Dopaso’s participation in enforcing the catheter exchange rule was not deliberate
indifference.
Goin and Dopaso were both named only in association with Claim 1, the Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 	The record
evidence does not support a finding of deliberate indifference against either defendant.
On the available evidence and faced with no argument to the contrary from Plaintiff, the
Court now finds it appropriate to grant summary judgment under Rule 56(f)(1) in favor
of Defendants Goin and Dopaso. See e.g., Haley v. Kolbe & Koble Millwork Co., 863 F.3d 600,
613 (7th Cir. 2017) (when there are no issues of material fact in dispute, a district court
may grant summary judgment on its own motion, as long as the losing party is given
notice and an opportunity to come forward with its evidence.).
Case 3:23-cv-03146-DWD Document 135 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of
Anastacia Goin and Sadiel Dopaso. This terminates all claims against all parties so the
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 31, 2025 	/s/ David W. Dugan
___________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-03146-DWD Document 135 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>