Webb v. Saddler et al
Filing
13
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied 3 and his complaint is dismissed because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim. However, the court will allow the Plaintiff one opportunity to file an amende d complaint if he can clarify his claim alleging cruel and unusual punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff must provide facts to support his claim that other Rushville Detainees were allowed to attend the funeral without a court order. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint and renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before November 4, 2015. If he fails to file his complaint on or before this deadline or fails to follow the court's direction, his case may be dismi ssed. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is also denied with leave to renew once he clarifies the claim in his complaint. 4 The Clerk of the Court is to provide the Plaintiff with a blank in forma pauperis form and to set this case for an internal review of Plaintiff's complaint deadline on November 13, 2015. Plaintiff's motion for a status update is denied as moot. 12 SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/13/2015. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 13 October, 2015 02:07:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD G. WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGG SCOTT, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-3135
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and civilly detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave 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 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 part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C.
Page 1 of 11
§ 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in
forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
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 plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted
cite omitted).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Northern District
of Illinois.[1] Plaintiff alleged former Illinois Department of Human
Services (DHS) Secretary Michele Saddler, Administrator Freeman
Anderson, Program Director Gregg Scott, and Illinois Twelfth Circuit
Court Judge Sara Jones violated his constitutional rights at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Center.
The Northern District of Illinois found the Plaintiff had failed to
state claims against Defendants Saddler and Judge Jones. See
Webb v Saddler, Case No. 15-3289, May 1, 2015 Order. Therefore,
these two Defendants were dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s remaining
Page 2 of 11
claims were transferred to the Central District of Illinois for proper
venue. Id.
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff learned on May 23, 2013 that his mother had passed
away. Plaintiff asked to attend his mother’s wake, but was told his
court-appointed counsel must file a motion with the commitment
court in order to obtain a court order allowing his transport.
Plaintiff claims the “DHS-TDF” policy required him to obtain a copy
of his mother’s death certificate as well as the name and address of
the funeral location for the court’s consideration. Plaintiff was able
to file the appropriate motion, but Will County Judge Jones denied
it. Plaintiff says as a result, he suffered emotionally and mentally to
the point that his physical health began to decline.
While the Plaintiff initially alleges a “policy” required him to get
court approval to attend the funeral service, Plaintiff later notes he
learned no such policy or directive existed. (Comp., p. 6, 7).
Nonetheless, Plaintiff says Defendant Anderson must have known of
his pain and suffering due to his mother’s death. In addition,
Defendant Scott knew the Plaintiff’s mother had passed away and
must have been aware there was no policy which required a court
Page 3 of 11
order for him to attend the service. Plaintiff states “[e]ven DOC
prisoners who are in the custody of the Dept. of Corrections for
punishment are not required to obtain a court-order to attend a
family members wake, funeral or deathbed visitation.” (Comp,p. 7).
Furthermore, he claims no other DHS patient or Rushville resident
had to obtain a similar court order.
Finally, Plaintiff says he was not offered any grief counseling
and he “should not have to request this counseling.” (Comp, p. 9).
Plaintiff is requesting $5,000,000 in damages from Defendant
Freeman and $8,000,000 in damages from Defendant Scott.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff is civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons
Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. The Act “authorizes
detention of individuals who have been adjudicated a ‘sexually
violent person’…. which requires, among other things, evidence that
the person ‘suffers from a mental disorder that makes it
substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual
violence.’” Lane v. Williams, 689 F.3d 879, 881 (7th Cir. 2012)
quoting 725 ILCS §207/5(f). “Civil commitment of this sort lasts
Page 4 of 11
until the detainee is no longer a sexually violent person.
Commitment under the Act is civil and so may be for purposes such
as incapacitation and treatment, but not punishment.” Lane, 689
F.3d at 881 (internal citations omitted).
The decision to civilly commit an individual is made by a state
court judge or jury. See 725 ILCS §207/40. Based on the
allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, he was required to obtain the
approval of the court which sanctioned Plaintiff’s commitment. See
725 ILCS § 207/55, 60, 65 (reexamination, conditional discharge
and release).
Therefore, the Plaintiff has not stated how Administrator
Anderson or Program Director Scott would have any role or
involvement in the denial of Plaintiff’s request. “[A] defendant
cannot be held liable under 42 USC §1983 unless a plaintiff can
demonstrate that the defendant caused or participated in the
alleged constitutional violation.” McBride v. Soos, 679 F.2d 1223,
1227 (7th Cir. 1982). In addition, the mere fact that a defendant
was a supervisor is insufficient to establish liability because the
doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not apply
Page 5 of 11
to actions filed under 42 USC §1983. Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d
871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Plaintiff also makes the assertion that no other state
prisoner or Rushville resident was ever required to obtain a court
order to attend a funeral. The Seventh Circuit has held federal law
does not entitle prisoners “to compassionate leave or for that matter
even to have contact with their families in prison.” Thomas v.
Farley, 31 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir.1994) (citing Merrit v. Broglin, 891
F.2d 169 (7th Cir.1989) and Touissaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.3d 1080,
1113 (9th Cir.1986)).
As the Plaintiff has noted, he is a civil detainee and therefore
his “situation is akin to that of a pretrial detainee.” Walker v.
Monahan, 2007 WL 2743586, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 11, 2007).
Therefore Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, unlike a state prisoner,
are derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, courts
have also found pretrial detainees have no liberty interest in
attending a family member’s funeral. See Higgenbottom v. Racine
County Sheriff Dept., 2015 WL 5512952, at *6 (E.D.Wis. Sept. 17,
2015)(citing cases). Furthermore, a district court recently held a
pretrial detainee who was denied the right to attend his sister’s
Page 6 of 11
funeral after a court initially approved the furlough, could still not
state a “Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for a violation of
his constitutional rights.” Higgenbottom, 2015 WL 5512952, at *6.
However, the Seventh Circuit and some other courts have “left
open the possibility that the denial of a funeral furlough could
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. citing Thomas, 31
F.3d at 559; see also McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d
Cir.1999); Butler v. Snyder, 106 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 (D.Del.2000).
Although Plaintiff’s claims are derived under the Fourteenth
Amendment, there is little practical difference between his claims
and that of a prisoner stating a claim under the Eighth
Amendment. Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir.2000).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants’ requirements
amounted to cruel and unusual punishment should be analyzed
under the Eighth Amendment test. Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d
839, 844 FN. 2 (7th Cir.1999). “To sustain this theoretical
constitutional violation, a plaintiff would need to show that ‘the
granting of such leave w[as] customary and prison officials denied it
on a particular occasion or to a particular prisoner in order to cause
psychological distress, or with deliberate indifference to his mental
Page 7 of 11
health.’” Higgenbottom, 2015 WL 512952, at *6 quoting Thomas, 31
F.3d at 559.
However, the Plaintiff simply alleges no one else has ever had
to obtain a court order to attend a funeral. (Comp., p. 7). His
conclusory allegation is not sufficient. Generally, a plaintiff need
not plead specific facts, but instead must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). However, a complaint must do
more than offer conclusions. Id at 555; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In other words, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). “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.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
Page 8 of 11
Since all Rushville residents are subject to the Illinois Sexually
Violent Persons Commitment Act, Plaintiff’s allegation that no other
resident had to obtain a court order to attend a funeral is not
“plausible on its face,” and the court cannot infer the Defendants
are liable. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678: see alsoMcCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011)(the plausibility
determination is a context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.) However, the
court will allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint if he can provide any further information concerning
Rushville residents who were allowed a funeral furlough without a
court order.
Plaintiff finally claims he was denied grief counseling and he
should not have to request it. However, the Plaintiff has been
committed to the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center to
receive treatment. Plaintiff’s allegation is premised on his claim
that Defendant Freeman should have known he needed additional
counseling. However, “[n]egligence on the part of an official does not
violate the Constitution, and it is not enough that he or she should
Page 9 of 11
have known of a risk.” Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902 (7t Cir.
2004).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied
[3] and his complaint is dismissed because Plaintiff fails to state a
federal claim. However, the court will allow the Plaintiff one
opportunity to file an amended complaint if he can clarify his claim
alleging cruel and unusual punishment under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Plaintiff must provide facts to support his claim that
other Rushville Detainees were allowed to attend the funeral
without a court order.
2) Plaintiff must file his amended complaint and renewed
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before November 4,
2015. If he fails to file his complaint on or before this deadline or
fails to follow the court’s direction, his case may be dismissed.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied
with leave to renew once he clarifies the claim in his complaint.[4]
Page 10 of 11
4) The Clerk of the Court is to provide the Plaintiff with a
blank in forma pauperis form and to set this case for an internal
review of Plaintiff’s complaint deadline on November 13, 2015.
5) Plaintiff’s motion for a status update is denied as moot.[12]
ENTERED: October 13, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
_________________________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 11 of 11
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?