Gaston v. McCoy et al
Filing
8
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 6/1/15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1)Plaintiff's amended complaint is due June 12, 2015. If an amended complaint is not filed, then this action will be dismissed withoutprejudice. 2)Motion to Sever due by June 22, 2015 and 3) granting 7 Motion to Amend/Correct; Motion for Leave to File. (See Full Written Merit Review Opinion).(VP, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 01 June, 2015 02:54:22 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERREL GASTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL MCCOY,
ROB MCCOY, BRIAN ASBELL,
CANTEEN, INC., JASON, and
RICK WIELAND,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-1054
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se from his incarceration in the
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on claims challenging the conditions of the Peoria County
Jail.
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's
favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Page 1 of 7
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (d/e 1)
and a motion to amend and memorandum he filed in support of the
Complaint (d/e 7).
Plaintiff was detained in the Peoria County Jail for about seven
months, from January 21, 2013, to August 5, 2013. He alleges that
he was given no underwear when he was booked into the Jail, the
policy being that detainees have to bring underwear from home or
purchase underwear from the commissary. He does not say how
long he had to go without underwear. He also alleges that he was
“denied proper sanitation to clean and sanitize underclothes and tshirts.” (Complaint p. 5). He contends that detainees should be
provided underwear and other necessities instead of relying on help
from outside.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Jail was rife with mold. The roof
allegedly leaked whenever it rained, sending brown water dripping
to the floor and tables below. Paint chips also regularly fell from
Page 2 of 7
the ceiling to the eating tables and the floor. Plaintiff alleges that
the mold and mildew in the showers caused him to suffer rashes
and eczema. He also alleges that he was exposed to second-hand
cigarette and marijuana smoke, which caused him to develop
breathing difficulties. He allegedly still suffers from eczema and
breathing difficulties as a result of the Jail’s “unhealthy and
deplorable” conditions. Plaintiff’s repeated complaints about these
conditions were allegedly ignored.
On a separate issue, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied
mental health treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder,
bipolar disorder, and depression during his stay at the Jail. He also
challenges the Jail’s lack of a grievance procedure.
Plaintiff seeks damages as well as systemic changes to the
Jail. He seeks an injunction prohibiting unlabeled food products,
an order directing the Jail and “Canteen, Inc.” to follow Food and
Drug Administration rules, the provision of underwear to detainees,
and the closure of the pods he stayed in until the mold and leaks
are fixed.
Page 3 of 7
ANALYSIS
“Jail officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are
deliberately indifferent to adverse conditions that deny ‘the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities,’ including adequate sanitation
and personal hygiene items.” Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842
(7th Cir. 2013)(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)
(other citations omitted).1 The totality of the conditions governs the
analysis. Id.
At this point, the allegations about the jail conditions are too
conclusory to determine whether Plaintiff states a constitutional
claim. For example, the Court does not understand how Plaintiff
was exposed to dangerous levels of second-hand smoke since
smoking is prohibited in places of employment. 410 ILCS 82/15.
Additionally, requiring detainees who have the resources to buy or
bring their own underwear does not violate the Constitution.
Shifting some of the costs of detention to the detainee is
permissible, provided that the detainee is able to provide himself
with the necessities. See, e.g., 730 ILCS 5/3-7-6(a)(IDOC inmates
are responsible for reimbursing the IDOC for their cost of
1
The Fourteenth Amendment is technically the applicable Amendment, since Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, but
the analysis is the same as under the Eighth Amendment. Budd, 711 F.3d at 842.
Page 4 of 7
incarceration). Plaintiff does not say how long he had to go without
underwear or whether he was able to buy underwear or have
someone bring him underwear. His allegations about inadequate
“sanitation” for his clothes is vague. And, Plaintiff’s request for the
Court to direct Defendant “Canteen, Inc.” to provide labeled food
products and to follow FDA rules states no federal claim for relief.
Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that the food he purchased
through the canteen was unfit for consumption or that he was not
provided adequate food by the Jail. See French v. Owens, 777 F.2d
1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985)(prisons must provide safe and
nutritionally adequate food)(quoting Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559,
570 (10th Cir. 1980). Lastly, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a
grievance procedure. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430
(7th Cir. 1996).
As to Plaintiff’s claim about the lack of mental health
treatment, that claim is not properly joined with the conditions of
confinement claim because the claims are unrelated and against
different defendants. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 18, 20. If Plaintiff wants
to pursue his mental health treatment claim, he will need to file a
Page 5 of 7
motion to sever and pursue the mental health claim in a separate
case, paying a separate filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismisses the Complaint without
prejudice to filing an amended complaint about the conditions of
confinement Plaintiff experienced in the Peoria County Jail.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due June 12, 2015. If an amended
complaint is not filed, then this action will be dismissed without
prejudice.
2) If Plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim for deliberate indifference
to his serious mental health needs during his confinement in the
Peoria County Jail, then he must file a motion to sever by June 22,
2015. The following must be attached to the motion to sever: 1) a
new complaint setting forth in more detail Plaintiff’s allegations
about his mental health problems, his efforts to obtain help, and
the responses he received; and 2) a petition to proceed in forma
pauperis. If Plaintiff does file a motion to sever, a new case will be
opened and another filing fee will be assessed. If Plaintiff does not
file a motion to sever, then Plaintiff’s mental health treatment claim
Page 6 of 7
in this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, as improperly
joined with Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim. Plaintiff is
advised that his constitutional claims are subject to a two-year
statute of limitations.
3) Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted (7) to the extent
Plaintiff requests that the allegations in the motion be considered in
the Court’s merit review. The Court has considered the allegations.
ENTERED: 6/1/2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/James E. Shadid
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?