Bauer et al v. Saddler et al
Filing
15
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/14/2011. SEE ATTACHED OPINION. Plaintiffs' petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied (d/e's 3, 4, 6, 7, 9) because they fail to state a federal claim for relief. The hearing scheduled for January 9, 2012, is cancelled as unnecessary. All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed.(DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 14 November, 2011 01:36:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
NICHOLAS R. BAUER, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHELLE R.B. SADDLER, et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3346
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Five Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, challenge the facility’s
decision to allow only those residents who have consented to sex offender
treatment to participate in the health care unit’s fitness group. Before
the Court are Plaintiffs’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis.
The "privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the
District Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if
1
such privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster v. North Am. Van
Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court
must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the court
determines that the action fails to state a claim." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if
the complaint states a federal claim. A hearing was scheduled to assist in
this review, but the hearing will be cancelled as unnecessary.
LEGAL STANDARD
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to
give “‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th
Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007)(add’l citation omitted). The factual “allegations must plausibly
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above
a ‘speculative level.’” Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. “A
2
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing
Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally
construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541,
546 (7th Cir. 2009).
ALLEGATIONS
Since being transferred from Joliet’s treatment center to Rushville’s
treatment center, Plaintiffs have steadily gained weight and are all now
obese and suffering from attendant health problems such as high blood
pressure and diabetes. Plaintiffs attribute their weight gain to two
primary causes: 1) Defendants allegedly provide a 2,850 calorie per day
diet, instead of a 2,000 calorie per day diet; and, 2) Defendants refuse to
allow Plaintiffs to participate in a fitness group reserved for residents who
have consented to sex offender treatment. The fitness group allegedly
3
meets frequently to work on exercise, diet, and other healthy lifestyle
issues. Plaintiffs are still allowed several hours of yard time per day, but
they contend that they need the guidance and instruction of the fitness
group. Plaintiffs assert that refusing them membership in the group
amounts to discrimination, an equal protection violation, and deliberate
indifference to their serious medical needs.
ANALYSIS
Conditioning privileges like the group fitness program on
participation in sex offender treatment does not violate the equal
protection clause, because the policy is rationally related to a legitimate
interest in motivating participation in treatment. Sain v. Wood, 512
F.3d 886, 888 (7th Cir. 2008)(housing decisions based on participation
in treatment were permissible as reward-incentive program). Thus,
Plaintiffs state no claim for unconstitutional discrimination.
Nor do Plaintiffs state a claim for indifference to their health.
Plaintiffs are free to exercise on their own during yard, in their rooms or
in the dayrooms. Plaintiffs are also free to consume fewer calories. In
4
short, no plausible inference arises that Plaintiffs’ conditions of
confinement violate constitutional standards.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiffs’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied
(d/e’s 3, 4, 6, 7, 9) because they fail to state a federal claim for relief.
The hearing scheduled for January 9, 2012, is cancelled as unnecessary.
All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed.
2.
If Plaintiffs wish to appeal this dismissal, they must file a
notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
should set forth the issues Plaintiffs plan to present on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
ENTERED: November 14, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?