Willis v. Dimas et al
Filing
11
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/21/2017. Rule 16 Deadline 11/20/2017. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The cler k is directed to attempt service on the defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 6 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 7 is denied, with leave to renew. Plaintiff's request for production of documents 4 and request for admissions 5 are denied as premature, with leave to renew at a more appropriate time. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 21 September, 2017 04:15:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MACEO G. WILLIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES T. DIMAS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-4232
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility (“TDF”) is requesting
leave to proceed under a reduced payment procedure for indigent
plaintiffs who are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined
in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
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 Circ. 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.
§ 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this court grants leave to proceed in
forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal action.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the 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)(citation
omitted). The court has reviewed the complaint and has also held a
merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to
personally explain his claims to the court.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that TDF officials have subjected him and other residents to
unconstitutionally punitive conditions. For example, plaintiff
alleges that TDF officials require inmates to wear black box
handcuffs, forced him to share a room with sexually violent
individuals, subjected him to intrusive cell searches and constant
surveillance through intercom systems, and pressured him to admit
to crimes for which he has not been charged. Plaintiff also alleges
that TDF officials have failed to provide him with adequate mental
health treatment, and that TDF officials apply the rules differently
based on race.
As a civil detainee, plaintiff’s constitutional rights are derived
from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See,
e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ----- U.S. -----, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2475
(2015); Budd v. Motley 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
the Seventh Circuit has “found it convenient and entirely
appropriate to apply the same standard to claims arising under the
Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and Eighth Amendment
(convicted prisoners) ‘without differentiation.’” Board v. Farnham,
394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) quoting Henderson v. Sheahan,
196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2 (7th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the alleged
failure to provide adequate mental health treatment. Hughes v.
Farris, 837 F.3d 807, 808 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff also states an
equal protection claim for his allegations that the rules are applied
to residents different based upon race. Willowbrook v. Olech, 528
U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
Plaintiff does not state a claim for the alleged punitive
restrictions. Civil detainees may be housed in prison-like
conditions without violating the Constitution. Allison v. Snyder,
332 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2003). Also, plaintiff has no Fifth
Amendment right to avoid confessing to uncharged crimes as
participation in treatment in Illinois is voluntary. Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the plaintiff states a
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious mental health need and an Equal
Protection claim against the named defendants. 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.
2.
This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice and
an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied
as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
Court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
3.
The Court will attempt service on the defendants by
mailing each defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60
days from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a
motion requesting the status of service. After the defendants have
been served, the Court will enter an order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
4.
With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that
defendant worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk
said defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only
for effectuating 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.
5.
The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the
date the waiver is sent by the Clerk. 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. In general, an
answer sets forth the defendants' positions. The Court does not
rule on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is
filed by the defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is
necessary or will be considered.
6.
This district uses electronic filing, which means that,
after defense counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by the plaintiff with the Clerk. The plaintiff does not need to
mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the
plaintiff has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to
discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and
responses are not filed with the Clerk. The plaintiff must mail his
discovery requests and responses directly to defendants' counsel.
Discovery requests or responses sent to the Clerk will be returned
unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to
compel. Discovery does not begin until defense counsel has filed an
appearance and the Court has entered a scheduling order, which
will explain the discovery process in more detail.
7.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to
depose the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the
defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in
writing, of any change in his mailing address and telephone
number. The plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this
lawsuit, with prejudice.
9.
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 through the U.S.
Marshals 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).
10. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
11. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures.
12.
granted.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [6] is
13. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [7] is denied,
with leave to renew. As the Court explained to plaintiff at the merit
review hearing, it does not possess the authority to require an
attorney to accept pro bono appointments on civil cases such as
this. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). The most
that the Court can do is to ask for volunteer counsel. Jackson v.
County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)(holding that
it is a "fundamental premise that indigent civil litigants have no
constitutional or statutory right to be represented by counsel in
federal court."). The key inquiry as to whether the Court should
attempt to recruit counsel is whether it believes that plaintiff can
represent himself. Contrary to his assertions, plaintiff's claims are
not complex. His claims have survived an initial merit review. At
this time, the Court finds that plaintiff is capable of litigating this
case himself. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655.
14. Plaintiff’s request for production of documents [4] and
request for admissions [5] are denied as premature, with leave to
renew at a more appropriate time.
Entered this 21st day of September, 2017
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?