Morris v. Baldwin et al

Filing 7

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. In the Complaint (Doc. 5), Plaintiff requests injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction (Doc. 1) was therefore included as a separate docket entry in CM/ECF, along with a copy of the Complaint. This Motion (Doc. 1) shall be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for prompt disposition. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/5/2017. (jaj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BARRY MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 17 cv–0456 DRH

JOHN BALDWIN,
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
FRANK LAWRENCE,
H. HAWKINS,
GAIL WALLS,
BOBBY HUGHES, and
CINDY MEYER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Barry Morris, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants have been deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical issues and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 5). This case is now before the
Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which provides:
(a) Screening – The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible
or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal – On review, the court shall identify
1

cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Frivolousness is an

objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find
meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross
“the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the
factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed.

See

Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.
The Complaint
In his Complaint (Doc. 5), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: before
Plaintiff’s incarceration, he had surgery on his right arm. (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
2

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

3

more hours. Id.
The next day, 1 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 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

1

Plaintiff indicates that the next day was “February 24, 2017,” but given the context in that the previous
day was stated to be March 23, 2017, the Court assumes this was a typographical error, and Plaintiff
intended to write “March 24, 2017.”

4

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

5

protocols recommended by Dr. Trost and the other doctors at Menard. (Doc. 5,
p. 8). Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages from the defendants. Id.
Discussion
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
designate a single count in this pro se action. The parties and the Court will use
this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute
an opinion regarding their merit.
Count 1 –

Defendants showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious
medical need for medical restraints and/or waist chains,
subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.

As discussed in more detail below, Count 1 will be allowed to proceed past
threshold.
Count 1 – Medical Needs
The Eighth Amendment

to

the

United

States

Constitution

protects

prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment. See Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d
435 (7th Cir. 2010).

The Supreme Court has recognized that “deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners” may constitute cruel and
unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); see Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2006) (per curiam). To state a claim, a prisoner must
show that: (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical need; and (2) state
officials acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical need, which is

6

a

subjective

standard.

Farmer v. Brennan,

511

U.S.

825,

834

(1994);

Chapman v. Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001).
The Court finds that the pain stemming from Plaintiff’s arm injury
described in the Complaint satisfies the objective component of Count 1 for
screening purposes.

Plaintiff has also satisfied the subjective component with

respect to each of the defendants.

According to the Complaint, each of the

defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s detailed letters and grievances about
staff not adhering to his medical restraints permit, despite being informed of his
need for medical restraints and/or waist chains.

Plaintiff has alleged that the

defendants ignored or failed to adequately address his needs despite this
knowledge, which at this stage, is sufficient to state a claim against them. 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).
The allegations in the Complaint support a claim of deliberate indifference
under Count 1 against each defendant and will not be dismissed at this stage.
Pending Motions
In the Complaint (Doc. 5), Plaintiff requests injunctive relief pursuant to
Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order/Injunction (Doc. 1) was therefore included as a separate docket
entry in CM/ECF, along with a copy of the Complaint. This Motion (Doc. 1) shall

7

be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for prompt disposition.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2)
and a Motion to Withhold Filing Fee Until the Above Captioned Case is Closed
(Doc. 3), which will be addressed in a separate order of this Court.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 1 shall proceed against Defendants
BALDWIN, LASHBROOK, LAWRENCE, HAWKINS, WALLS, HUGHES, and
MEYER.
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction (Doc. 1) is
REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge, who shall resolve the request
for a temporary retaining order and preliminary injunction as soon as practicable.
Any motions filed after the date of this Order that relate to the request for
injunctive relief or seek leave to amend the Complaint are also hereby
REFERRED to the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall take appropriate
steps in coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service, to effect formal, PERSONAL
SERVICE of summons, the Complaint, and this Order upon each Defendant at
his or her work address, as provided by Plaintiff. The Court will not require
Defendants to pay the full costs of formal service, as the Court is ordering
personal service to expedite the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.

8

The United States Marshals Service is APPOINTED pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) to effect service.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to

complete, on Plaintiff’s behalf, a summons and form USM-285 for service of
process on Defendants BALDWIN, LASHBROOK, LAWRENCE, HAWKINS,
WALLS, HUGHES, and MEYER. The Clerk shall issue the completed summons,
and prepare a service packet for each Defendant consisting of: the completed
summons, the completed form USM-285, a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 5), which
contains the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction,
and this Memorandum and Order. The Clerk shall deliver the service packets for
each Defendant to the United States Marshals Service for personal service on each
Defendant.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, on or before May 18, 2017,
the United States Marshals Service SHALL PERSONALLY SERVE upon
Defendants

BALDWIN,

LASHBROOK,

LAWRENCE,

HAWKINS,

WALLS,

HUGHES, and MEYER, the service packets containing the summons, form USM285, a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 5), which contains the motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction, and this Memorandum and Order.
LEAVING

THE

SUMMONS

WITH

THE

PRISON’S

LITIGATION

COORDINATOR IS NOT SUFFICIENT – each Defendant must be personally
served. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States, and the Clerk
shall provide all necessary materials and copies to the United States Marshals
Service.
9

In order to assist the Court in its resolution of the motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief (contained within the
Complaint), Defendants BALDWIN, LASHBROOK, LAWRENCE, HAWKINS,
WALLS, HUGHES, and MEYER SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the motion
within the deadline set by the United States Magistrate Judge to whom this case is
referred.
With respect to a defendant who no longer can be found at the work
address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the
defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the defendant’s last-known
address.

This

information

shall

be

used

only

for

effecting

service.

Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address
information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon each defendant (or upon defense counsel once an
appearance is entered) a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for
consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be
filed a certificate stating the date on which a true and correct copy of the
document was served on the defendant or counsel.

Any paper received by a

district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that
fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to a United
States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.

Further, this entire

matter shall be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition,

10

pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all parties consent to

such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the
payment of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full
amount of the costs, whether or not his application to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his
address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall
be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in
address occurs.

Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the

transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for
want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.05.05
09:52:23 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 5, 2017

United States District Judge

11