TAYLOR v. ZATECKY et al

Filing 18

ORDER Reconsidering Screening Order and Allowing Claim under Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to Proceed - For the foregoing reasons, the Court reconsiders the Screening Entry with respect to Mr. Taylor's Rehab Act claims only. In addition to the c laims identified in the Screening Order, dkt. 8 , Mr. Taylor's claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall proceed against Commissioner Robert E. Carter in his official capacity (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 11/16/2020.(DWH)

Case 1:20-cv-02413-JPH-MPB Document 18 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 305

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
QUENTIN L. TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DUSHAN ZATECKY, et al.
Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-02413-JPH-MPB

Order Reconsidering Screening Order
and Allowing Claim under Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to Proceed
The Court screened plaintiff Quentin Taylor's complaint and permitted Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claims, Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claims and related failure to train claims, and First Amendment retaliation claims to
proceed. Dkt. 8. Mr. Taylor responded to the Court's Screening Order, arguing that the Court
should also allow his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehab Act") to proceed, as well as his claims of failure to protect and
failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt 12.
A.

ADA and Rehab Act Claims
The Court finds it appropriate to reconsider the Screening Order with respect to Mr.

Taylor's claims under the Rehab Act. In Jaros v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667,
672-73 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit concluded that a plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts
to state a claim under the Rehab Act where he alleged that he was denied access to a work release
program because medical staff placed a "medical hold" on his file solely because he used a cane.

1

Case 1:20-cv-02413-JPH-MPB Document 18 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 306

Mr. Taylor makes similar factual allegations. He asserts:
By defendant(s) [deliberately] and chronically denying plaintiff mental health care,
plaintiff['s] mental illness and conditions worsened, and as a result he was denied
programs, out-of-cell activities, mail, visitation and religious services [] because of
his mental health illness and conditions.
Dkt. 12 at 3. In essence, he alleges that he was denied access to programs and services because his
mental health deteriorated as a result of not receiving mental health services. "Because such an
allegation is plausible (even if perhaps improbable)," Mr. Taylor may proceed with this claim
under the Rehab Act. Jaros, 684 F.3d at 673. The Court will not allow Mr. Taylor's claims to
proceed under the ADA because the relief under the ADA and Rehab Act is "coextensive," and a
plaintiff "can have but one recovery." Id. at 671-72.
B.

Failure to Protect and Failure to Intervene Claims
The Court will not reconsider the Screening Order with respect to Mr. Taylor's failure to

protect and failure to intervene claims. As noted in the Screening Order, dkt. 8 at 8 n.3, failure to
protect and failure to intervene are alternative ways of challenging the conditions of one's
confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (recognizing that the prohibition
of "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eight Amendment imposes duties on prison officials
to "provide humane conditions of confinement," "ensure that inmates receive adequate food,
clothing, shelter, and medical care," and "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the
inmates." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In other words, the Court permitted Mr.
Taylor's Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, and this encompasses the allegations made by Mr.
Taylor in his complaint.
C.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court reconsiders the Screening Entry with respect to Mr.

Taylor's Rehab Act claims only. In addition to the claims identified in the Screening Order, dkt. 8,
2

Case 1:20-cv-02413-JPH-MPB Document 18 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 307

Mr. Taylor's claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall proceed against Commissioner
Robert E. Carter in his official capacity.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/16/2020

Distribution:
QUENTIN L. TAYLOR
178973
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel

3