Caldwell v. Snyders et al

Filing 6

ORDER : Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at Plaintiffs place of incarceration to deduct $32.12 from Plaintiff's account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial payment of the filing fee, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Supervisor of the Inmate Trust Fund Accounts at Vandal ia Correctional Center. Although the complaint states claims against Stephenson County Sheriff Snyders and a jail corporal named Nick, summonses will not issue at this time. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation 4 . Th e Court enlists David T. Erie, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60654, [phone], email: [e-mail], to represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel's trial bar obligations under N.D. Ill. Local Rul es 83.11(g) and 83.37. Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel should enter an appearance for Plaintiff. By April 11, 2016, after counsel has had an opportunity to confer with Plaintiff and conduct a preliminary investigation of his claims, counsel should inform the Court whether he intends to proceed with the current complaint or submit an amended complaint, if he is able to do so pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. [See STATEMENT] Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 2/24/2016:Mailed notice(jp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Joseph B. Caldwell (K-63686),
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff David Snyders, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 50015
Judge Frederick J. Kapala

ORDER
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The Court
orders the trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of incarceration to deduct $32.12 from Plaintiff's
account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial payment of the filing fee, and to
continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk of Court is
directed to send a copy of this order to the Supervisor of the Inmate Trust Fund Accounts at
Vandalia Correctional Center. Although the complaint states claims against Stephenson County
Sheriff Snyders and a jail corporal named Nick, summonses will not issue at this time. The
Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for attorney representation [4]. The Court enlists David T. Erie,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60654, [phone], email:
[e-mail], to represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel’s trial bar obligations
under N.D. Ill. Local Rules 83.11(g) and 83.37. Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel
should enter an appearance for Plaintiff. By April 11, 2016, after counsel has had an opportunity
to confer with Plaintiff and conduct a preliminary investigation of his claims, counsel should
inform the Court whether he intends to proceed with the current complaint or submit an amended
complaint, if he is able to do so pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Joseph Caldwell, an inmate confined at Vandalia Correctional Center proceeding
pro se, brings this suit concerning events that occurred while he was incarcerated at the
Stephenson County Jail from December 12, 2013 to April 29, 2014. Plaintiff states his right leg
is amputated below the knee and he has a prosthetic leg. Allegedly, upon entering the jail, a
corporal named Nick placed Plaintiff in a segregation cell for no reason other than his prosthetic
leg. After Plaintiff complained that he was not allowed to shower or use the telephone and that
his American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) rights were being violated, Nick placed Plaintiff in
“A” block, a “wheelchair accessible dorm that holds 50 prisoners.” Compl. at 6. Plaintiff,
however, was not provided a wheelchair and his prosthetic leg was taken away, even though he
explained he could not stand or walk without it. According to Plaintiff, he was given his
prosthetic leg for trips to court, but at all other times during his four and one-half month
confinement at the Stephenson County Jail he “had to crawl from [his] bed to the cell block door

3xs per day to get [his] food, plus crawl to the washroom, shower, etc.” Compl. at 6. He also
had to crawl across dirty shower floors to use the washroom or shower. Id.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, his
complaint for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and his motion for attorney representation.
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates he cannot
prepay the filing fee and is thus granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2), the Court
orders: (1) Plaintiff to immediately pay (and the facility having custody of him to automatically
remit) $32.12 to the Clerk of Court for payment of the initial partial filing fee and (2) Plaintiff to
pay (and the facility having custody of him to automatically remit) to the Clerk of Court twenty
percent of the money he receives for each calendar month during which he receives $10.00 or
more, until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to ensure that
a copy of this order is mailed to each facility where Plaintiff is housed until the filing fee has
been paid in full. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court,
219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall
clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this case.
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), the Court is required to screen pro se
prisoners’ complaints and dismiss the complaint, or any claim therein, if the Court determines
that the complaint or claim is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Jones
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007); Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
Courts screen prisoner complaints in the same manner they review ordinary Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir.
2011). A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. See Hallinan
v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Rule
8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule
8(a)(2) must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). Under the
federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Put differently, a “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, [courts]
accept the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true.” Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d
662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013). Courts also construe pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Assuming Plaintiff’s allegations are true, he states colorable claims, at least against
Sheriff Snyders and Corporal Nick. Jail officials’ refusal to accommodate a disabled inmate’s
needs may give rise to constitutional violations, as well as violations under the Americans with
2

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684
F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2012) (addressing the elements of a constitutional deliberateindifference claim, an ADA claim, and a Rehabilitation Act claim); see also Arnett v. Webster,
658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011) (officers cannot act with deliberate indifference to an inmate's
serious medical needs); see also McKinnie v. Dart, No. 14 C 9588, 2015 WL 1117297 at *4-5
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015) (Blakey, J.) (addressing the elements of both constitutional and ADA
claims for a pretrial detainee with a prosthetic leg) (collecting cases).
With respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claims (as well as any Rehabilitation Act claims), Sheriff
Snyders is a proper Defendant. Such claims should be brought against a public entity or against
a supervisory official in his official capacity. See Jaros, 684 F.3d at 670 & n.2 (citing 42 U.S.C.
§ 12131)); see also Norfleet v. Shah, No. 14-cv-1408, 2015 WL 196476 at * 3-4 (S.D. Ill. Jan.
14, 2015) (individual capacity claims are unavailable under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; the
proper defendant is the public agency or its director in his official capacity). As to any
individual capacity claims for alleged constitutional violations, however, the only Defendant
mentioned in the body of Plaintiff’s complaint is Corporal Nick. Plaintiff names additional
Defendants (Dean Schroeder (a jail administrator), an unnamed nurse, and a sergeant named
Larry); however, the complaint’s allegations mention none of these individuals. See Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009) (a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to adequately
connect specific defendants to illegal acts”). Plaintiff indicates that he may provide more
specific information about his claims and he asks for the “opportunity to elaborate on his
claims[] in depth.” Compl. at 7. If Plaintiff seeks to sue parties not mentioned in the body of his
complaint, he will have to file an amended complaint specifying their involvement.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff states claims against Sheriff Snyders
and Corporal Nick. A concern exists with whether referring to a party as “Corporal Nick” is
sufficient to effectuate service, and Plaintiff may need to conduct discovery on Sheriff Snyders
to determine the full name of this Defendant, as well as other parties who allegedly participated
in constitutional violations but whose names Plaintiff does not know.
Because it appears that Plaintiff will have to conduct discovery just to identify parties to
name as Defendants and because such discovery may need to be conducted in a relatively quick
manner, see Turley, 729 F.3d at 651 (suits in Illinois have a two-year statute of limitations), the
Court grants Plaintiff’s request for attorney representation. Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812,
815 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting the difficulties with an inmate conducting discovery on parties not
located at the inmate’s place of confinement); see also Miller v. Campanella, 794 F.3d 878, 880
(7th Cir. 2015) (“where an inmate alleges an objectively serious medical condition, it may be
better to appoint counsel—so that he or she can investigate and flesh out any claim that may
exist—than to dismiss a potentially meritorious claim”). The Court enlists David T. Erie,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60654, [phone], email:
[e-mail], to represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel’s trial bar obligations
under N.D. Ill. Local Rules 83.11(g) and 83.37. Within 21 days of the date of this order, counsel
should enter an appearance for Plaintiff. After counsel has had an opportunity to confer with
Plaintiff and conduct a preliminary investigation of his claims, counsel should inform the Court,

3

by the date stated in the Order section above, whether he intends to proceed with the current
complaint or submit an amended complaint, if he is able to do so pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
To assist counsel, the Court advises him that he may seek to serve the current complaint
on Sheriff Snyders and request the full name of Corporal Nick. If counsel seeks to use the U.S.
Marshal’s Service to serve Snyders, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c), he may request the issuance of
summons for Snyders and submit to the Court or the Marshal a completed USM 285 Service
Form, which is on the Court’s website.

Date: February 24, 2016

4