Jones v. Estes et al
Filing
32
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 29 ). Defendants shall file their answers or responsive pleadings by April 3, 2017. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/13/2017. (tfs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O ESTES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16 CV 835 SMY/RJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Jones’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections. He
seeks to amend his Complaint in order to substitute Stacie Murray for “Stacy” as a defendant, to
add Molly McElvain as a defendant, and to add fact allegations and claims. Plaintiff’s motion is
unopposed and complies with the local rules for amended complaints. Accordingly, the motion
is granted.
Complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress against governmental entities and their
employees are subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint will now be screened.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s initial Complaint,
characterizing Plaintiff’s claims as follows:
Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants
Stacy, Hill, Estes, and Wolfe failing to protect Plaintiff from his cellmate,
Courtney Tolbert.
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for not allowing his to
go to the health care unit after the assault by his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
(Doc. 10.) Plaintiff has now submitted a proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29.) The Court
characterizes the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint as follows:
Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants
Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to protect Plaintiff from his
cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for not allowing
Plaintiff to go to the health care unit after the assault by his cellmate, Courtney
Tolbert. 1
Count 3: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Defendants Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to protect
Plaintiff from his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert, and not allowing him to go to the
health care unit after the assault by his cellmate.2
Count 4: A Fourteenth Amendment claim of denial of procedural due process
claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for Plaintiff’s disciplinary proceedings
and placement in segregation following the assault by his cellmate, Courtney
Tolbert.3
Count 5: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Defendants Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to
report the risk of physical harm by Plaintiff’s cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
Count 6: A Fourteenth Amendment denial of substantive due process claim
against Defendants Hill, Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to
protect Plaintiff from his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
1
Count 2 contains allegations to support two separate claims of deliberate indifference. The Court separates the
claims and designates one of the claims as Count 5.
2
The Amended Complaint does not specify whether Plaintiff intends to state a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Because the allegations for Count 3 more closely
resemble a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court will construe Count 3 as such a a claim.
3
The Amended Complaint does not specify whether Plaintiff intends to state a claim for substantive or procedural
due process. Count 4 also includes allegations to support two separate claims. The Court will therefore construe
Count 4 as a procedural due process claim and Count 6 as a substantive due process claim.
2
II. DISCUSSION
In Count 3, Plaintiff asserts a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Defendants Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray and McElvain, for failing to protect Plaintiff from his
cellmate, Courtney Tolbert, and not allowing him to go to the health care unit after having been
assaulted by Tolbert. To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under
Illinois law, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) Defendants engaged in conduct that was truly extreme
or outrageous; (2) Defendants intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was
a high probability that their conduct would result in severe emotional distress; and (3) Plaintiff
suffered severe emotional distress. Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 777 N.E.2d 1032, 1036 (2002). The
claim does not reach “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other
trivialities.” McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ill. 1988) (quoting Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965)). Rather, a defendant’s conduct must be such that the “‘recitation of
the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor,
and lead him to exclaim: Outrageous!’” Doe v. Calumet City, 641 N.E.2d 498, 507 (Ill.
1994) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965) (internal quotations
omitted)). In Mcgrath, the Illinois Supreme Court cited non-exclusive factors which should
inform the court’s determination as to whether this standard has or can be met. See McGrath, 533
N.E.2d at 809-10. One such factor is the degree of power or authority that the actor has over the
plaintiff. Id.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray and McElvain took no action to
protect him from Tolbert after Plaintiff specifically informed them Tolbert’s threats of violence
toward him. Plaintiff further alleges that Estes and Wolfe refused to allow Plaintiff to obtain
3
medical care after he was assaulted by Tolbert and sustained serious injuries to his head and face.
Given the degree of Defendants’ power over Plaintiff and his necessary reliance on them for
protection against such assaults, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress at the screening stage.
In Count 4, Plaintiff attempts to assert a Fourteenth Amendment denial of procedural due
process claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe resulting from Plaintiff’s disciplinary
proceedings and placement in segregation following the assault by his cellmate. “A procedural
due process claim requires a two-fold analysis. First, [the Court] must determine whether the
plaintiff was deprived of a protected interest; second, [the Court] must determine what process is
due.” Leavell v. Illinois Dep’t of Nat. Res., 600 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir. 2010). “To show a
failure of due process, a plaintiff might show that state procedures as written do not supply basic
due process or that state officials acted in a random and unauthorized fashion in depriving the
plaintiff of his protected interest.” Strasburger v. Bd. of Educ., Hardin Cty. Cmty. Unit Sch.
Dist. No. 1, 143 F.3d 351, 358 (7th Cir. 1998). “Due process does not guarantee correct
outcomes in every case.” Del’s Big Saver Foods, Inc. v. Carpenter Cook, Inc., 795 F.2d 1344,
1350 (7th Cir. 1986). Rather, “[d]ue process just requires procedures that will usually lead to
correct outcomes.” Id.
Based on Plaintiff’s exhibits, which include the disciplinary report and related grievance
documents, it appears that he was placed in segregation pursuant to a disciplinary hearing in
accordance with state procedures. Plaintiff suggests an erroneous outcome, but fails to describe
any procedural deficiency. As such, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for procedural due process,
and Count 4 will be dismissed.
4
In Count 5, Plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs against Defendants Hill, Murray and McElvain, for failing to report the
risk of physical harm posed by Plaintiff’s cellmate, Courtney Tolbert. In Count 6, Plaintiff
attempts to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the denial of substantive due process against
Defendants Hill, Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray and McElvain, for failing to protect Plaintiff from
Tolbert. Although Counts 5 and 6 adequately state constitutional claims, they overlap entirely
with Count 1.
Regardless of the type of harm alleged, “[a] prison official's deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). Although the distinction is, for most purposes,
academic, the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, prohibits state
officials from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660,
666 (1962). Accordingly, Counts 5 and 6 will be dismissed.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges each claim against Defendants in both their official and
individual capacities and seeks monetary relief. However, “[d]efendants are immune from suit
under § 1983 for monetary damages in their official capacities.” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709,
716 (7th Cir. 2011. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities
shall be dismissed.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc.
29) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint. Counts 1-3 survive threshold review against Defendants Steven Estes, John Wolfe,
Wanda Hill, Stacie Murray, and Molly McElvain in their individual capacities.
5
The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to prepare for Defendant McElvain (1) Form 5
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of
Service of Summons). The Clerk shall mail these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If
Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk
within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect
formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal
service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants Steven Estes, John Wolfe, Wanda Hill, Stacie Murray are ORDERED to file
an answer or responsive pleading within 21 days of the entry of this Order.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 30) is DENIED as
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 13, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
6
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?