Sain v. Saddler et al

Filing 6

OPINION (See Written Opinion): The hearing scheduled for November 5, 2012 is cancelled. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (d/e 2 ). This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on December 17, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/25/2012. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 25 October, 2012 11:04:06 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TIMOTHY SAIN,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
MICHELLE SADDLER,
TARRY WILLIAMS,
HUGHES LOCHARD,
FORREST ASHBY, and
DALE KUNKEL,
Defendants.

12-CV-3258

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff is detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center
pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act. He seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on his claim that the top bunk beds are dangerous.
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 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 action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if

1

part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). 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 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

2

541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that the top bunks at the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center lack railings or ladders. Twice he has fallen off the top bunk while
sleeping, once injuring his back and the next time injuring his ribs. He cannot
climb up safely onto the top bunk. His complaints to Defendants about this
problem have been unavailing. He seeks “some safety mechanism” for the top
bunk and damages for his pain and suffering.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to humane conditions and to be free from
deliberate indifference to a known and substantial risk of serious harm. Sain v.
Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 893 (7th Cir. 2008)(committed person is entitled to “‘humane
conditions’” and the provision of “‘adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care’”)(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994)).
At this point, determining whether the design of the top bunk presents a
substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff would be premature. Accordingly, the
claim will be allowed to proceed against the facility director, Forrest Ashby, and
the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Michelle Saddler. Ashby and
Saddler arguably occupy positions which might enable them to take action to

3

reduce the risk by installing safety rails and ladders for the top bunks. The claim
will also be allowed to proceed against Defendant Dr. Lochard, who might have
the authority to prescribe Plaintiff a low bunk.
Defendants Williams and Kunkel will be dismissed. Williams was the
former security director, and Kunkel is the current security director. No plausible
inference arises that they have any control over whether Plaintiff is assigned a top
bunk or control over the design of the bunk beds.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The hearing scheduled for November 5, 2012 is cancelled. The clerk is
directed to notify Plaintiff’s detention facility of the cancellation.
2) Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (d/e 2).
Pursuant to its review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s states a
claim for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm presented by
Plaintiff’s top bunk. This claim proceeds against Defendants Saddler, Ashby, and
Lochard. Defendants Williams and Kunkel are dismissed for failure to state a
claim against them. This case proceeds solely on the claim identified in this
paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the
Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

4

3) The Clerk is directed to attempt service of the Complaint and this order on
each Defendant pursuant to this District's internal procedures for Rushville cases.
4) If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the Clerk
within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to
effect formal service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant to pay the
full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
5) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address provided
by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address shall
provide to the Clerk that Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, that
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for effecting
service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the
Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
6) Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule.
A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses
appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall
be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion.
7) Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served but who is
not represented by counsel a copy of every filing submitted by Plaintiff for
consideration by the Court, and shall also file a certificate of service stating the

5

date on which said copy was mailed. Any paper received by a District Judge or
Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a
required certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
8) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies
of his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk
will file Plaintiff's document electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to
defense counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on
Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not
available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
9) This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P.
16 on December 17, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can reach the case)
before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough by video conference. The Clerk is
directed to give Plaintiff’s place of confinement notice of the date and time of the
conference, and to issue the appropriate process to secure the Plaintiff’s presence at
the conference.
10) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at his
place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the
depositions.
11) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the court of any change in their

6

mailing addresses and telephone numbers. Failure to notify the Court of a change
in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
ENTERED: October 25, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7