Franklin v. Scheighart et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint with r espect to the deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, access to the courts, and retaliation claims. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintif f's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/23/2015. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 24 April, 2015 04:20:13 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL FRANKLIN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KAREN SCHEIGHART, et al.
)
)
Defendants. )
14-3387
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at
Sangamon County Jail, brings the present action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations that occurred while
Plaintiff was civilly detained at McFarland Mental Health Center.
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.
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
Page 1 of 8
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff became a resident at McFarland Mental Health Center
(“McFarland”) pursuant to state court criminal proceedings related
to his fitness to stand trial. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from
several medical conditions requiring ongoing care, including
dementia, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and other
neurological disorders. Plaintiff alleges that officials at McFarland
failed to provide him with specialized neurological medical care and,
as a result, his conditions worsened. In addition, Plaintiff alleges
that he suffered from stress-related seizures, and that officials
failed to provide adequate dental care.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the courts
because McFarland officials prevented him from attending a hearing
for his state court criminal case, denying or otherwise impeding
Plaintiff’s communication with his legal counsel, and preventing
access to his legal documents. Plaintiff also alleges that officials
retaliated against him for expressing his opinion that they were
Page 2 of 8
unprofessional and acting in a manner contrary to his best
interests.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asserts theories of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, denial of access to
the courts, and a retaliation claim.
Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need
As a resident of McFarland, Plaintiff’s claims arise under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 893 (7th Cir. 2008).
Despite this distinction, there exists “little practical difference
between the two standards.” Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.2d 934,
938 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1032
(7th Cir. 2000)).
Liability attaches when officials act with deliberate indifference
to a detainee’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 105 (1976). “An objectively serious medical need is one that
has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the
Page 3 of 8
necessity for a doctor's attention.” King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013,
1018 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that he suffers from a serious medical need.
Plaintiff, however, fails to allege sufficient facts to support a
finding of deliberate indifference at this time. Deliberate
indifference is more than negligence, but does not require the
plaintiff to show that the defendants intended to cause harm.
Mayoral v. Sheehan, 245 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2001). Liability
attaches under the Eighth Amendment when “the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could
be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1994).
Plaintiff alleges only conclusory statements that he has been
denied medical care. The only specific allegations concern the
officials’ failure to provide Plaintiff with specialized neurological
care. This allegation on its own is not sufficient to support a claim
for deliberate indifference. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege
facts that show “the need for specialized expertise either was known
Page 4 of 8
by the treating physicians or would have been obvious to a lay
person[.]” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 411 (7th Cir. 2014)
(citations omitted). From the facts alleged, the Court cannot
determine whether a specialist was warranted in Plaintiff’s case, nor
can the Court determine the nature of the medical care Plaintiff was
receiving, or if he was receiving any at all. Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Plaintiff could potentially state a claim if he provides more facts
concerning the nature of the medical care he received while at
McFarland, and how the medical staff was deficient in meeting his
medical needs. Therefore, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an
amended complaint on this issue.
Access to the Courts
Detainees have a constitutional right of access to the courts.
Cf. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (prisoners have a
fundamental right of access to the courts). An official is liable only
if the official’s conduct “prejudices a potentially meritorious
challenge to the prisoner’s conviction, sentence, or conditions of
confinement.” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.
2006). Thus, at a minimum, a plaintiff must plead “the connection
Page 5 of 8
between the alleged denial of access…and the inability to pursue a
legitimate [claim].” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that McFarland officials denied him access to
his legal materials and denied or otherwise impeded communication
with his attorney. Plaintiff also alleges officials intentionally denied
him access to the courts by not allowing him to attend a court
hearing in his state criminal proceeding. Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim because he has not alleged how those actions impeded a
meritorious legal claim. Plaintiff could potentially state a claim if he
provided more detail regarding the specific actions of specific
individuals at McFarland, the nature of any legal harm actually
incurred, and the connection between the two. Therefore, Plaintiff
is granted leave to plead additional facts regarding the denial of
access to the courts.
Retaliation
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied one of his meals as
retaliation for expressing his opinion that McFarland employees
were unprofessional and acting in a manner counterproductive to
his medical needs. To prevail on a retaliation claim, the Plaintiff
must show that he engaged in activity protected by the First
Page 6 of 8
Amendment; he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First
Amendment activity in the future; and the First Amendment activity
motivated the decision to take retaliatory action. Bridges v. Gilbert,
557 F.3d 541, 553 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s opinions could be a
protected First Amendment activity if “not inconsistent with
legitimate penological interests,” id. at 551, though from the
Complaint the Court cannot tell whether this is the case. Plaintiff,
however, has not alleged how being denied one meal on one
occasion would likely deter such future activity, even when
assuming that Plaintiff’s expression in this case was protected and
that the officials were motivated to act by said speech. At this
point, Plaintiff has not stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Plaintiff is granted leave to plead additional facts regarding this
issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file
an amended complaint with respect to the deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, access to the courts,
Page 7 of 8
and retaliation claims. Failure to file an amended complaint
will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will
replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety.
Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all
allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are
not accepted.
ENTERED:
April 23, 2015.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
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?