Payne v. Federal Goverment et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 11/8/2018: The Court also denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the damages ruling for the reasons stated above 92 and dismisses his claim for injunctive relief. As this is the last remaining claim in the case, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case in its entirety. Mailed notice. (pjg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DIONELL PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE and GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 5970

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dionell Payne is paralyzed from the neck down and uses a wheelchair.
Back in 2014, an earlier lawsuit that Mr. Payne had filed went to trial before a jury and
the undersigned judge. For several days in November 2014, Mr. Payne was
transported to the Dirksen Courthouse for the trial. The accommodations were not
good. Personnel of the U.S. Marshals Service had to take the foot rests off of Mr.
Payne's wheelchair and "squish" him into an elevator in an uncomfortable manner
because the elevator was too small to accommodate him and his wheelchair. Next, he
had to change out of prison garb and into civilian clothing in a holding cell that was not
handicap-accessible and lacked rails and grips that he needed to steady and reposition
himself. Mr. Payne says that as a result of these inadequate accommodations, he fell
and injured himself, causing spasms and neck pain. Mr. Payne made complaints but
was given the brush-off. He later filed the present lawsuit, suing the Marshals Service

and the General Services Administration.
If even half of what Mr. Payne alleges is true, he was treated shamefully. No
person with a disability should be precluded from equal access to a courthouse, yet that
is exactly what happened. Inexplicably, no one from the Marshals Service, the GSA, or
the Department of Justice has ever expressed any regret for how Mr. Payne was
treated. He deserves an apology. The Court—which, after all, presided over the trial
during which all of this happened—humbly apologizes to Mr. Payne for the way he was
treated. The conditions to which he was subjected were degrading, and this should not
have happened. The Court assures Mr. Payne that in subsequent trials involving
disabled persons in the Dirksen Courthouse—including at least one involving the
undersigned judge—we have done far better.
Unfortunately, however, Mr. Payne does not have a viable lawsuit. He sued for
both damages and an injunction. The judge to whom the case was previously assigned
dismissed the claim for damages, relying on a controlling Supreme Court decision, Lane
v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996), in which the Court held that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity bars claims for damages against the government under the Rehabilitation Act.
That ruling was clearly correct based on the Supreme Court's decision, so the Court
overrules Mr. Payne's request for reconsideration. If he wishes, Mr. Payne can appeal
the ruling to the Seventh Circuit.
More recently, after attempting unsuccessfully to settle the case, the Court came
to believe that Mr. Payne might not have a viable claim for injunctive relief, because that
sort of a claim requires a risk of future harm. The Court ordered both parties to file
written submissions on this point. Mr. Payne did not make a written submission (other

2

than his request to overrule the dismissal of his claim for damages), but the government
did.
The Court now concludes that Mr. Payne lacks standing to pursue a claim for
injunctive relief. For standing to exist in this situation, Mr. Payne cannot rely simply on
the past harm that he experienced; he must show a threat of future injury that is real
and immediate and not conjectural. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102
(1983); Am. Bottom Conservancy v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 650 F.3d 652, 658 (7th
Cir. 2011). Mr. Payne faces no such risk. His earlier lawsuit is concluded, and the only
case he has pending in this district is the present case. And at present, Mr. Payne is no
longer in custody, having been released on parole. Thus even if one were to assume,
for purposes of discussion, that the pendency of the present case can appropriately be
considered, were the case to go to trial Mr. Payne would attend the trial as a free man,
not a prisoner, and thus he would not be subjected to the control of the Marshals
Service or to holding cells and other areas where prisoners who are on trial are held. 1
Because Mr. Payne cannot show any realistic, non-conjectural threat of future
injury from the conditions he challenges, the Court dismisses his claim for injunctive
relief for lack of standing.
Conclusion
The Court also denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the damages ruling
for the reasons stated above [92] and dismisses his claim for injunctive relief. As this is

In any event, there are currently ADA-compliant holding cells on the 10th floor of the
Dirksen Courthouse, and were the present case to go to trial, the Court would hold the
trial on that floor, as it did in at least one recent case involving a prisoner confined to a
wheelchair.

1

3

the last remaining claim in the case, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment
dismissing the case in its entirety.
Date: November 8, 2018
________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge

4