Morris v. Baldwin et al
Filing
16
ORDER granting in part 1 Motion for TRO/Injunction. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/11/17. (klh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BARRY MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 17-0456-DRH
JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction and Background
Pending before the Court is Morris’s motion for temporary restraining
order/injunction (Doc. 1).
Specifically, Morris seeks to enjoin Menard
Correctional Facility from using box and chains restraints on him and instead use
medical restraints and/or waist chains restraints for which he has a medical permit
Page 1 of 10
on plaintiff’s state court writ on May 12, 2017. 1 After notifying the defendants of
plaintiff’s motion, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and took the matter under
advisement on May 10, 2017. Based on the following, the Court GRANTS in part
the motion for temporary restraining order/injunction.
On May 2, 2017, Morris, an inmate house at the Menard Correctional Center,
filed suit against John Baldwin, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Frank Lawrence, H.
Hawkins, Gail Walls, Bobby Hughes and Cindy Meyer for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 5). 2 Morris claims that
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues and
subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
On May 5, 2017, the Court conducted its preliminary review of
Morris’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191A and designated Morris’ complaint
into a single count – “Defendants showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious need for medical restraints and/or waist chain, subjecting him to cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 7). The Court
summarized the facts as alleged by Morris as follows:
“Before Plaintiff’s’ incarceration, he had surgery on his right arm.
1
According to the Seventh Circuit, “[t]he ‘black box’ is a hard plastic box placed over the lock
apparatus that runs between the prisoner's handcuffs. The box does not cover the hands, but is
situated between them. A chain runs through the box and encircles the prisoner's waist.
The chain is tightened and then locked in back so that the prisoner's hand, restrained by handcuffs
and the black box, are pulled against his stomach.” Knox v. McGinnis, 998 F.2d 1405, 1407 (7th
Cir. 1993)).
Morris’ complaint and motion for temporary restraining order/injunction are the same document
(Docs. 1 & 5).
2
Page 2 of 10
(Doc. 5, p. 2). Plaintiff went to physical therapy for a year to regain
motion in his arm, but it is still partially paralyzed and sensitive to the
touch. (Doc 1, p. 3). Plaintiff was incarcerated as early as 2006, but he
did not experience box and chain restraints until 2012. Id. Because of
the great deal of pain the box and chain restraints caused Plaintiff, he
sought a medical permit from the Stateville medical director that
would exempt him from the box and chain restraints in favor of
medical restraints and/or waist chains. Id. Stateville’s medical director
granted the permit without issue, and a new medical restraints permit
has been issued to Plaintiff every year since. Id.
Plaintiff was transferred to Menard from Stateville on August
31, 2016. (Doc. 5, p. 2). On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff showed Dr.
Siddiqui his previous medical permits from Stateville, and explained
his medical condition and history to him. Id. Dr. Siddiqui issued
Plaintiff a comparable medical restraints permit for Menard on
October 31. (Doc. 5, p. 3). On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff went out on
his first medical writ, and his waist chains and/or medical restraints
permit was not honored, allegedly because the medical permit was not
issued by the medical director, Dr. Trost. Id. Plaintiff was subjected to
the box and chain setup, and was in pain because of it for
approximately three hours. Id.
Plaintiff saw Dr. Trost on March 13, 2017, and was issued a
medical permit allowing Plaintiff waist chains and/or medical
restraints among other medical accommodations. Id. On March 23,
2017, Plaintiff had another medical writ, so he showed the permit
from Dr. Trost to the writ officers in order to avoid placement in the
box and chain setup. (Doc. 5, p. 4). The writ officers told Plaintiff that
the administration would not honor his permit. Id. Plaintiff was
scheduled for an MRI, so he went on the medical writ without the
benefit of waist chains and/or medical restraints, and he suffered in
pain for another three or more hours. Id.
The next day, Plaintiff had another medical writ but refused to
go unless he was placed in the proper, approved restraints. Id.
Plaintiff was told by a corrections officer that the waist chains and
medical restraints would not be allowed, but that the officer, a major,
would make sure Plaintiff could put his hands any way he wanted and
the handcuffs would not be as tight as before. Id. Plaintiff agreed to
these terms, but blood flow was still interrupted and his hand and
arm became numb, his middle finger curled up, and he endured pain
and suffering for another three or more hours. Id.
Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance on March 29, 2017 to
Defendant Warden Lashbrook regarding the situation. Id. On April 5,
2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant ADA Warden Lawrence
Page 3 of 10
concerning the issue. (Doc. 5, p. 5). Plaintiff also wrote to several other
individuals during this timeframe in an attempt to resolve the issue,
including Defendant John Baldwin on April 12, 2017. Id. Plaintiff
requested a status update from Lashbrook on April 13, 2017 because
he feared his upcoming court writ to Joliet, Illinois in the box and
chain would further damage his right arm and hand and would cause
ongoing pain throughout the writ. Id. Because Lashbrook would not
answer his grievance, Plaintiff sent a cover sheet with his March 29,
2017 emergency grievance to Defendant Meyer on April 19, 2017,
concerning his need for waist chains and/or medical restraints during
his upcoming court writ to Joliet. Id. Meyer has not answered the
grievance. Id.
On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Hawkins,
explaining his situation and the risk of serious damage to his arm if he
is forced to go to Joliet in the box and chain setup. Id. Plaintiff sent a
similar letter to Defendants Hughes and Walls on April 27, 2017,
explaining that irreparable harm will befall his right arm and hand if
his medical permit is not honored. (Doc. 5, pp. 5-6). On April 27,
2017, Plaintiff also filed another grievance with Meyer in response to
his being taken out on another medical writ that day and being forced
to use the box and chain setup. (Doc. 5, p. 6). Because his medical
permit was not honored, Plaintiff’s finger curled into a ball, and the
pain was so intense it brought him to tears. Id. Plaintiff made a verbal
complaint to the nurse and the mental health staff, and is scheduled to
see mental health and the medical doctor. Id.
Plaintiff is scheduled for a court writ in Joliet, Illinois on May
12, 2017. (Doc. 5, p. 7). He has alleged that there is a strong
possibility that he will have to leave from Menard for more medical
and court writs in the near future and that if he does not get the proper
restraints, he will be subjected to ongoing pain and suffering due to
the box and chain setup. Id. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction that would direct the defendants and
the Illinois Department of Corrections to use medical restraints and/or
a waist chain on Plaintiff when he has a court or medical writ and to
follow the medical protocols recommended by Dr. Trost and the other
doctors at Menard. (Doc. 5, p. 8). Plaintiff also seeks monetary
damages from the defendants. Id.
(Doc. 7, ps. 2-6) (footnote omitted). Thereafter, the Court set this matter for an
evidentiary hearing (Doc. 9).
Page 4 of 10
On May 10, 2017, the Court held the evidentiary hearing.
Siddiqui, ADA Hawkins and Warden Lashbrook all testified.
Morris, Dr.
Based on the record,
the oral argument and the applicable law, the Court rules as follows.
Injunction Standard
In order to obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction
under Rule 65, Morris must demonstrate that: (1) his underlying case has some
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists, and; (3)
Morris will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Woods v. Buss, 496
F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007). If those three factors are shown, the district court
must then balance the harm to each party and to the public interest from granting
or denying the injunction. Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013);
Cooper v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999). The United States Supreme
Court has emphasized that a “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear
showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453
F.3d 853, 870 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
(1997) (emphasis in original)).
Here, the Court finds that Morris has met all three elements entitling him to
a preliminary injunction. First, the Court finds that Morris’ underlying case has
some likelihood of success on the merit based on the allegations in the complaint
Page 5 of 10
and the testimony given during the hearing. 3 The issue presented here is not the
need for a type of restraint which is inherently discomforting, but the unnecessary
use of a painful means of a restraint when an alternative is available and specifically
prescribed by a physician. Morris’ pain and suffering stemming from his arm
injury satisfies the objective component of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners. Also, Morris satisfies the subjective component in
that there is evidence in the record (exhibits attached to the complaint and Morris’
testimony that he sent various letters to defendants) that defendants were aware of
Morris’ situation and ignored or failed to adequately address his medical needs for
medical restraints and/or waist chain. See Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781-82
(7th Cir. 2015)(“An inmate’s correspondence to a prison administrator may …
establish a basis for personal liability under § 1983 where that correspondence
provides sufficient knowledge of a constitutional deprivation.”)(citation omitted).
Also, at the stage of the proceedings, Morris’ claim satisfies the Whitley test.
See
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir. 2000)(In Eighth Amended excessive
force cases, “’the core judicial inquiry’ is whether force was applied in a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously or sadistically to cause
harm.”) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992)); Whitley v. Albers, 475
The elements for a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim are: (1) the prisoner
suffered from an objectively serious medical need; and (2) the state officials acted with deliberate
indifference to the prisoner’s medical need, which is a subjective standard. Farmer v. Brennan¸
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Chapman v. Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001).
3
Page 6 of 10
U.S. 312 (1986). 4
Second, Morris has clearly demonstrated that no adequate remedy at law
exists. Typically a legal remedy is inadequate for one of four reasons: (1) damages
would come too late to be of meaningful value to the plaintiff; (2) plaintiff might not
be able to afford the full litigation; (3) the defendant might not be collectible at the
end of the litigation; or (4) the monetary damages might be too difficult to
calculate. Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th
Cir.1984). Here, the damage to Morris’ right arm through the continued use of the
box and chain restraints may result in severe, if not total, deterioration of the arm,
which would require extensive rehabilitation to restore if it ever could. Moreover,
use of the box and chains would result in extreme pain and suffering.
Third, Morris has clearly shown that without an injunction he will suffer
irreparable injury in his right arm.
Morris testified that the box and chains
restraints cause him unbearable pain and suffering as that type of cuff rises up his
arm and cuts of the blood flow. Morris also testified that since the use of the box
and chains restraints on him while housed in Menard his middle index finger is
now crooked when before and after physical therapy it was straight.
Lastly, after balancing the harm to Morris and defendants and to the public
interests, the Court finds that an injunction is proper. While defendants testified
and showed that the box and chains restraints are generally the preferred method
Two different Eighth Amendment standards potentially apply here: (1) the Whitley standard, and
(2) the “deliberate indifference” standard of Farmer.
4
Page 7 of 10
for cuffing prisoners as they are the most safe and secure way to transport
prisoners (the way the hands are placed when cuffed around the box make it
impossible for inmates to pick the key locks of the cuffs), Morris, likewise,
demonstrated that the waist chain restraints as they pertain to him are as effective
as the box and chains restraints and do not cause him harm.
The Menard
correctional officers who transported Morris provided the Court with a
demonstration of the waist chain restraints on Morris. With the waist chain
restraints on, Morris, who was in a wheelchair, could only move his hands about
six inches from his waist.
Furthermore, Menard correctional officials safely
transported Morris to the Court for this hearing utilizing the waist chain
restraints. 5 Here it seems that that there is/was an unnecessary use of a painful
means of a restraint when an alternative means is available and specifically
prescribed by a prison physician.
Thus, the balancing of harm between the
parties and to the public interests weigh in favor towards Morris. Thus, the Court
finds that an injunction based on the circumstances of this case is warranted.
Lastly, the Court notes that it must address the question it posed to the
parties before the evidentiary hearing adjourned: whether this motion is moot as
there is no longer an ongoing injury to Morris as he currently is on the medical
permit list and he was transported to the Court with waist chain restraints.
According to Warden Lashbrook, Morris is currently on the May 8, 2017 medical
Warden Lashbrook testified that after she read the complaint in this case, she checked into Morris’
allegations/situation and made sure that the medical permit allowing medical restraints and/or waist
chain restraints was honored.
5
Page 8 of 10
permit list for waist chain restraints and will remain on the list until his medical
permit expires on March 18, 2018 (she looked into the situation) and that she
made sure that her officers/employees are aware of Morris’ situation. However,
the Court notes that the evidence reflects that Morris should have been and very
well might have been on the medical permit list when the staff at Menard did not
honor his medical restraint permit and utilized the box and chains restraints for
his medical writs. The evidence as to this issue is vague and Warden Lashbrook
was not certain.
Thus, the Court is left to speculate as to when Morris was
officially placed on the medical permit list and when/how an inmate is placed on
and taken off of the medical permit list.
Further, Morris remains under the
complete control of those who decide which restraints to utilize. Morris’ situation
is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” and therefore based on the record, the
Court finds that motion is not moot. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102
S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Morris’ motion for temporary
restraining order/injunction (Doc. 5). The Court effectively immediately ENJOINS
Menard Correctional Center, its officers, employees, agents, servants and
employees from utilizing box and chain restraints on Morris.
This Injunction
shall remain in place until further order of this Court. The defendants may move,
Page 9 of 10
for example, to dissolve this order if the medical permit has been removed or if it
has been determined that Mr. Morris presents a risk to the safety and security of
those around him during times that restraints would be called for.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of May, 2017.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.05.11
14:53:11 -05'00'
United States District Judge
Page 10 of 10
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?