Giles v. Taylor et al

Filing 97

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 91 ) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73 ). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/25/2015. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRUCE GILES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-00965-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc.
91) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 73). Plaintiff’s Objections to the R & R (Doc. 95) are timely filed.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

As Plaintiff has filed

objections, the Court will review the R & R de novo.
Plaintiff Bruce Giles is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
with a history of mental illness1. He suffers from schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, depression
and has attempted suicide. The Court has no doubt that the plaintiff suffers from an objectively
serious medical condition.
1

  The R & R outlines his medical treatment and prescription history so the Court will not repeat it here. 
1

Count 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants Salvador Godinez, Richard
Birkey, Leonta Jackson, Ron Zessin, Randy Pfister, Michael Lemke, Marc Hodge, Mark Storm,
and Randy Stevens were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious mental health needs.
Count 2 alleges Defendants Randy Pfister, Michael Lemke, Marc Hodge, Mark Storm and Randy
Stevenson failed to remedy the vermin infestation in Plaintiff’s cell and Count 3 alleges that
Defendants Marc Hodge, Mark Storm, and Randy Stevenson failed to protect the Plaintiff from
an inmate attack that occurred in February of 2012.
The R & R recommends that Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Salvador Godinez, Richard Birkey, Leonta Jackson, Ron Zession, Randy Pfister, Michael
Lemke, Marc Hodge, Rark Storm and Randy Stevenson be granted.
The Plaintiff’s objections state that since Plaintiff’s complaint survived review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, it should survive summary judgment and that his complaint should be view as
“Pattern, Practice, and Policy” of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious mental health
needs. The objections go on to list the various exhaustion of administrative remedies which are
not at issue in the R & R, but the Court perceives the information is provided as demonstrating
Plaintiff’s attempts at obtaining assistance and/or that the Defendants were aware of the issues
and failed to take action.
Plaintiff

also

argues

that

deliberate

indifference

results

from

unlicensed

psychiatric/mental health counselors and that only one licensed psychiatrist is available for three
prisons. Having only one psychiatrist limits the amount of time the psychiatrist is available to
spend with each patient and as such, puts all seriously mentally ill inmates at risk of harm or
death. He also states that suicide prevention procedures are inadequate and that prison staff are
not properly trained/instructed/supervised to deal with the mentally ill. He also argues that

2

mentally ill inmates should not be housed with non-mentally ill inmates as the non-mentally ill
inmates do not understand, nor can they assist, with mentally ill inmates and that housing
together can lead to such incidents as alleged in the complaint.
Summary judgment must be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int’l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Chelios v.
Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
Mental health issues and adequate mental health care is a difficult area for the Courts to
address since a treatment that may work for one patient may be insufficient for the next.
Treating mental health professional are required to make difficult determinations with regard to
the placement of mentally ill inmate and their placement among general prison population. The
plaintiff received frequent mental health examinations; was prescribed psychotropic medications;
and there were no indication that he was in an excessive risk while housed in segregation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review. The Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 95) contain
the same arguments2 put forth in Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 80) to the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. These arguments were addressed in the R & R and for the reasons stated in
the R & R, the Court agrees that summary judgment is appropriate. As such, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 91) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73).
2

  Plaintiff’s objection state a single psychiatrist for three prisons and his response notes the limited on‐on‐one 
time available which the Court views as is essentially the same issue. 
3

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment according.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8/25/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

4