Tate v. Lynch et al
Filing
15
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order is denied (d/e 3 ). 2) Plaintiff's motion to compel the prison to produce Plaintiff's trust fund statement is denied (d/e 5 ) as unnecessary. The clerk will obtain Plaintiff's trust fund information. 3) Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied (d/e 13 ). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/21/2013. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 21 March, 2013 04:04:00 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CARL TATE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MS. LYNCH, TARRY WILLIAMS,
SANDRA FUNK, S.A. GODINEZ,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-CV-3060
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Western
Illinois Correctional Center. He pursues an Eighth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious
harm to his mental health and physical safety arising from his
placement at Western Illinois Correctional Center in light of
Plaintiff's alleged gender identity disorder. Plaintiff also states an
Eighth Amendment claim that the failure to protect Plaintiff
effectively imposes inhumane conditions of confinement because
Plaintiff must avoid showering, eating, and visiting the yard and
gym to stay safe, and a First Amendment claim that he cannot go to
Page 1 of 9
church because of the failure to protect him. An equal protection
claim is also arguably stated.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking
a transfer to Dixon Correctional Center or Centralia Correctional
Center, where Plaintiff believes he will be safer from sexual
harassment, sexual assault, and attacks. He also believes that he
will be able to obtain the mental health treatment he needs at Dixon
Correctional Center.
A hearing on Plaintiff's preliminary injunction was held on
March 20, 2013. Plaintiff, Warden Tarry Williams, and Major Ruiz
appeared by video conference from Western Correctional Center.
Illinois Assistant Attorney General Terence Corrigan appeared in
person.
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Court makes the findings below for purposes of
this order only.
“[A] preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching
power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding
it.” Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of
America, 549 F.3d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoted cites and
Page 2 of 9
internal quotation marks omitted). “‘To win a preliminary
injunction, a party must show that it has (1) no adequate remedy at
law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is
denied and (2) some likelihood of success on the merits.’” ACLU v.
Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, (7th Cir. 2012)(quoted cite omitted). After
this threshold showing, the potential harms to the parties and
public are weighed. Id.
After hearing all the testimony, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that he has some
likelihood of success on his claims or that he will suffer irreparable
harm if his request for a transfer is denied.
The Court does not doubt Plaintiff's testimony that he is
repeatedly sexually harassed by inmates propositioning him or that
other inmates have threatened Plaintiff because Plaintiff has been
labeled a snitch. The Court also does not doubt Plaintiff's
testimony that when Plaintiff showers, he is accosted by other
inmates wanting sex and who become sexually aroused. As the
Court noted at the hearing, though Plaintiff is over six feet tall,
Plaintiff appears slight of stature. Plaintiff also exhibits effeminate
behaviors, which make him more vulnerable in the prison setting.
Page 3 of 9
However, Warden Williams and his staff have taken Plaintiff's
fears seriously. Warden Williams has and continues to enlist staff
in the health care, internal affairs, and mental health to address
Plaintiff's issues. Plaintiff has been placed on the safest wing in the
prison. This wing houses inmates who are responsible and
trustworthy enough to hold top prison jobs. Common areas at the
prison like the cafeteria, day room, yard, and library are supervised.
The only unsupervised area is the shower room, which is part of the
day room. Warden Williams agreed at the hearing to allow Plaintiff
to shower by himself, outside of the regular shower times. Plaintiff
agreed not to enter or take a shower during regular shower times.
Major Ruiz has reviewed the entire prison population to
identify safe cellmates for Plaintiff. Ruiz identified an appropriate
cellmate, inmate Pleasant, who was significantly smaller than
Plaintiff, was incarcerated for a non-violent offense, and was not
affiliated with a gang. Pleasant was approved as Plaintiff's cellmate
by mental health staff. However, according to Ruiz, Plaintiff
contended that Pleasant was a gang member, and Plaintiff asked to
be celled with an inmate Anderson, who is significantly larger than
Plaintiff, is a gang member, and is incarcerated for a violent offense.
Page 4 of 9
Plaintiff testified that gang members made Pleasant request a move
out of Plaintiff's cell, but Plaintiff's testimony is hearsay, vague and
unpersuasive.
Additionally, Defendants presented testimony which tends to
discredit Plaintiff's testimony. Major Ruiz has observed Plaintiff
going about Plaintiff's normal routine, regularly outside his cell and
speaking with inmates in the day room. Plaintiff admits that he
attends the library, the day room, the commissary, and recently
voluntarily attended a "call line" with inmates from all over the
prison, where inmates waited in line to discuss personal concerns
with an administrator. Further, Defendants testified that Plaintiff
is a validated gang member, incarcerated for murder. Plaintiff
asserts that he has been trying to renounce his gang membership,
but Plaintiff's testimony on this was vague and confusing. Plaintiff
also admitted that the inmates who have sexually harassed him did
not touch him. Plaintiff testified that he weighed 142 pounds when
he entered prison in 2002 and now weighs about 165 pounds,
which suggests that he is receiving adequate nutrition despite his
avoidance of the cafeteria.
Page 5 of 9
Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will
actually be safer, mentally or physically, in a different prison.
Plaintiff does not dispute that mental health professionals
recommend against placing Plaintiff in a single cell because that
isolation increases Plaintiff's suicide risk. Plaintiff agreed that he
should not be placed in a single cell. Plaintiff does not dispute that
a maximum security prison, which has protective custody, would be
detrimental to his mental health. Plaintiff's belief that Dixon
Correctional Center or Centralia Correctional Center will be better is
based on what other inmates have told him, not on any personal
experience or admissible evidence. Warden Williams testified that
he was not aware of any separate building for vulnerable inmates at
Centralia Correctional Center. In short, on this record, the Court
agrees with Warden Williams that Plaintiff is probably safer at
Western than at a different medium security prison, given
Defendants' familiarity with Plaintiff's situation and Defendants'
commitment to addressing that situation.
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction will be denied.
However, the Court remains concerned about Plaintiff's welfare.
Page 6 of 9
Therefore, this case will be set for an expedited disposition of the
preliminary injunction and trial.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary
restraining order is denied (d/e 3).
2) Plaintiff's motion to compel the prison to produce Plaintiff's
trust fund statement is denied (d/e 5) as unnecessary. The clerk
will obtain Plaintiff's trust fund information.
3) Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied
(d/e 13). Plaintiff demonstrated at the preliminary injunction
hearing that Plaintiff is a skilled communicator and well versed in
the applicable law. Additionally, Plaintiff has some experience
litigating in federal court, according to the Court's computerized
records (PACER). Plaintiff can testify personally to the threats and
harassment he is experiencing and has already identified relevant
documentary evidence and witnesses. On this record, Plaintiff
appears competent to proceed pro se in light of the nature of his
claims.
4)
Defendants are directed to return signed waivers and
file their Answers by April 19, 2013.
Page 7 of 9
5)
Discovery closes June 28, 2013.
6)
A final pretrial conference is set for July 16, 2013 at 1:30
p.m. by video. Counsel shall appear in person.
7)
Jury selection and trial are set for August 13, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. If the jury finds in Plaintiff's favor on the merit of
Plaintiff's claims, the Court will then consider the injunctive relief
that should be awarded to remedy the constitutional violations. If
the jury finds against Plaintiff, the Court will not consider Plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief.
8) The Court Reporter is directed to prepare and file a
transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) By March 25, 2013, send waivers of service to Defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures, along with a copy of this
order.
2) Send a copy of this order to Illinois Assistant Attorney
General Robert Fanning.
3) Fax a copy of this order to Plaintiff and Defendants.
4) Send a copy of this order to the Court Reporter.
ENTER: March 21, 2013
Page 8 of 9
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?