Dickerson v. Warden of Pinckneyville Correctional Center et al

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Samuel L Dickerson, denying 4 MOTION for Order filed by Samuel L Dickerson, adopting 51 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 01/15/2015. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SAMUEL L. DICKERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACHARY ROECKEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-1018-SMY-PMF

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Samuel Dickerson’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3), which was filed as part of Plaintiff’s original Complaint
(Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff filed multiple supporting documents, and an evidentiary hearing
was held on November 13, 2014. Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Philip Frazier filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc.51). Plaintiff objected (Doc. 53), and Defendants
responded to Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 60).
In his Complaint, motions and various memorandums to the Court, Plaintiff has
alleged the following: He experienced religious discrimination when he was denied a
Kosher diet to conform to his Muslim faith and was instead ordered a vegan diet tray
which conforms to a Hindu diet. Plaintiff states that a diet of only vegetables is
prohibited by Islam. Further, in regards to food, Plaintiff alleges that he is getting only
two trays per day (and needs three) and has been forced to sell food items to pay for
envelopes and other essential items to pursue his claims in this Court.
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the religious discrimination and lack of proper
diet, his bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia have worsened. While Plaintiff has received

some mental health treatment, he believes the medications that have been prescribed are
not well-suited to his particular disorders. Plaintiff admits he is refusing prescribed
medications (for example, Tegretol, which is classified as an anti-epileptic drug but is
also approved to treat bipolar disorder) and has requested other anti-psychotic drugs
instead. Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment claims based on deliberate indifference in
the failure to properly address his mental health needs.
Plaintiff originally requested an injunction in the form of a transfer from
Pinckneyville Correctional Center to Dixon Correctional Center based on the belief that
he would receive better care and would suffer irreparable harm if forced to remain at
Pinckneyville. However, because his release date was near, he subsequently requested
that he (1) be immediately placed on either Zyprexa Zydis or Seroquel (antipsychotic
medications) and (2) be transferred to a state mental health facility upon his release. (See
Plaintiff’s Objection to Report and Recommendations at Doc. 53.) Plaintiff also believes
he suffered prejudice from the absence of his appointed counsel at the evidentiary hearing
in November. Because subsequent motions have been filed (that are not considered in
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation), only the original injunction request
is considered here.
Defendants Roeckeman and Spiller responded (Doc. 60) to Plaintiff’s Objection
and stated Plaintiff’s Objection failed to point to any affirmative proof countering the
Magistrate Judge’s findings, but at any rate, injunctive relief would be rendered moot
upon release from IDOC custody (which was anticipated the same day Defendants filed
their Response—December 15, 2014).

2

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for the
following reasons. First, the materials on file fail to suggest that Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference can succeed on the subjective element
requirements. In particular, Plaintiff received treatment but refused to take the prescribed
medication. A disagreement with prescribed medication does not show substantial
departure from accepted professional judgment. Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff,
700 F.3d 1063, 1073 (7th Cir. 2012). Second, there is no persuasive evidence that a
transfer to Dixon Correctional Center would make a difference in Plaintiff’s mental
health care. As the Magistrate Judge determined, the prospect of irreparable harm
resulting from his continued detention at Pinckneyville is speculative. Health care staff at
his current facility is familiar with Plaintiff’s medical history and have devised a
treatment plan that could be effective if Plaintiff elects to comply with prescribed
treatment efforts.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at Docs. 3 and 4 is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s subsequent motions remain pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 15, 2015
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

3