Smith et al v. Bassi et al
Filing
21
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/30/2015. Plaintiffs' petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, without prejudice, because their complaint does not state a federal claim, d/e's 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 . A Plaintiff may file his own complaint in a new action setting forth the particular factual basis for his own claim. This case is CLOSED. All pending motions are denied as moot, 19 and 20 . (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 30 September, 2015 04:50:28 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL W. SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY M. BASSI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-3149
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and 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 is paid. 28 U.S.C. §
Page 1 of 5
1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the allegations state a federal claim for relief.
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. 2103). 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)(citation
omitted).
Plaintiffs allege systemic failures in diagnosing and treating
mental illness at the facility. They ask to pursue a class action and
list counts for deliberate indifference and disability discrimination.
They seek an injunction requiring mental health training for staff
and appropriate mental health screening and treatment.
Plaintiffs cannot pursue a class action because they are not
represented by counsel, but, even if they were represented by
counsel, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not demonstrate the requirements
for a class action. See Rowe v. Davis, 373 F.Supp.2d 822, 828
(N.D. Ind. 2005)("A litigant may bring his own claims to federal
court without counsel, but not the claims of others."); Fed. R. Civ.
Page 2 of 5
P. 23 (setting forth class action requirements). Plaintiffs’ allegations
are too vague and conclusory to allow an inference that their claims
share common issues or that their separate claims are properly
joined into one action. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 18, 20.
Plaintiffs are constitutionally entitled to adequate treatment
for mental illness. Adequate treatment in the constitutional sense
means that treatment decisions are made by qualified professionals
within acceptable professional boundaries. Allison v. Snyder, 332
F.3d 1076, 1081 (7th Cir. 2003)("(a) committed persons are entitled
to some treatment, and (b) what that treatment entails must be
decided by mental-health professionals"). Only treatment decisions
far afield from those boundaries violate the Constitution. See
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323 (1982)(decisions by
professionals working at mental health institution are afforded
deference and violate the Constitution only if professional judgment
not exercised); Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894-95 (7th Cir.
2009)(deliberate indifference means a "substantial departure from
accepted professional judgment.").
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to support their claims
for inadequate treatment. They set forth their diagnoses and the
Page 3 of 5
medications they have been prescribed, but they do not explain how
their treatment has fallen short of accepted standards or explain
what kind of treatment they believe they need. They do not say
whether they have consented to treatment, whether they have a
treatment plan in place, or whether they have begun that
treatment. Their allegations generally assail Rushville’s treatment
approach, but that is not enough to state a constitutional claim. In
short, the Court cannot tell what happened to each Defendant.
In sum, the Court cannot discern a constitutional claim from
these conclusory allegations. Accordingly, the complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice to each Plaintiff filing his own lawsuit
and providing enough facts about his particular situation—what
happened to him and when with regard to his treatment or lack
thereof. If the allegations of these separate lawsuits indicate that
the cases may be properly joined, the presiding judges over those
cases will make that decision. If a Plaintiff has already paid a partial
filing fee in this case, then that Plaintiff may file a motion to waive
the partial filing fee in the new case he files.
IT IS ORDERED:
Page 4 of 5
1.
Plaintiffs’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are
denied, without prejudice, because their complaint does not state a
federal claim (d/e’s 2-7). A Plaintiff may file his own complaint in
a new action setting forth the particular factual basis for his own
claim.
2.
This case is closed.
3.
All pending motions are denied as moot (19, 20).
ENTERED: September 30, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 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?