The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MATTHEW R. ANDERSON, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 20-2300
)
ANTONIO BROWN, et.al., )
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983
followed by two motions for leave to file an amended complaint. (1, 8, 12). Plaintiff’s
most recent complaint supersedes the previous complaints. Therefore, the Court will
deny the first motion for leave to amend as moot [8] and grant the second motion for
leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [12].
The Court is still required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s second
amended complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it
“(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915A.
Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint identifies various Defendants at the Macon
County Jail including Sheriff Antonio Brown, unidentified jail employees, Assistant Jail
Superintendent Flannery, Jail Superintendent Jaimie Belcher, Crossing Health Care, and
unidentified “Medical Services Doctor.” (Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 1).
Plaintiff says he is a pretrial detainee who entered the jail in June of 2020.
Plaintiff developed a back injury after sleeping on the dayroom floor without a
mattress. Based on the attachments to his complaint, Plaintiff says inmates remain in
the dayroom for 14 hours a day. (Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 8). Since he is not allowed to bring
his mattress into the dayroom, Plaintiff slept on the concrete floor when he was tired.
(Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 8).
Plaintiff admits he saw a Crossing Health Care doctor on an unspecified day, but
says his injury was a “reoccurring issue.” (Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 1). Plaintiff told Nurse
Leslie the steroids the doctor provided were not working and his back was worse. The
nurse said she could give him Tylenol and check with the doctor. The nurse then
provided the Tylenol but advised Plaintiff the doctor would not see Plaintiff and would
not order any additional medication.
Defendant Assistant Jail Superintendent Flannery responded to Plaintiff’s
grievance.
The Macon County Jail does not allow medium and maximum security
classified inmates to bring their mattress out into the common area during
hours out. This policy has been in place for nearly three years and is
non-negotiable. (Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 7).
Plaintiff says the doctor is refusing to provide him with proper medical
treatment. In addition, Defendant Flannery allows minimum security inmates to bring
out mattresses, but Plaintiff is forced to sleep on a concrete floor.
The Fourteenth Amendment's objective unreasonableness standard governs a
pretrial detainee's claims alleging a denial of medical care. Miranda v. County of Lake,
900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff has not met this standard. Plaintiff does not
provide much information about his back injury except to say his back hurts after he
sleeps on the day room floor. Plaintiff has not provided time frames for when he met
with a doctor, nor has he stated what diagnosis he received. Plaintiff admits the doctor
provided medication, but Plaintiff still chose to continue sleeping on the floor during
the day even though jail staff “highly discourages” this practice. (Sec. Amd. Comp., p.
1). Furthermore, Plaintiff was provided Tylenol when he again complained of pain, and
Plaintiff does not allege he made any further complaints regarding back pain. Finally,
Plaintiff clearly had a mattress in his cell to use during the evening hours.
It is not clear if Plaintiff intended to state a separate claim because he was not
allowed to move his mattress into the dayroom while other detainees could. “A
pretrial detainee states a conditions-of-confinement claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment if he was subjected to conditions that were ‘objectively unreasonable’ and
‘excessive in relation to any legitimate non-punitive purpose.’” Smith v. Brown-Foiles,
2020 WL 6889248, at *5 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 24, 2020) quoting Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816,
824 (7th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff has not met this standard as he has not alleged an
objectively unreasonable living condition. In addition, Jail staff explained the only
detainees allows to move their mattress were those at a minimum-security risk, and
courts must give correctional administrators “wide-ranging deference in the adoption
and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve
internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520, 547 (1979).
Plaintiff next says he has been in the jail since June of 2020 and the staff is not
following any of the required safety measures to prevent exposure to COVID-19.
(Sec.Amd. Comp., p. 2). For instance, staff members do not properly wear masks,
inmates are not provided hand sanitizer, are not allowed to socially distance, are not
allowed proper cleaning and disinfecting solutions, and new detainees are immediately
placed in general population.1
For the purposes of notice pleading, Plaintiff has described conditions which are
sufficiently serious and Defendants who acted objectively unreasonable. See i.e. Adkins
v. Watson, 2020 WL 6701142, at *2 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 13, 2020)(plaintiff alleges constitutional
violation “for exposing Plaintiff to conditions of confinement that posed a substantial
risk of serious harm caused by the novel coronavirus…”).
Plaintiff may proceed with this claim against Defendants Sheriff Antonio Brown,
Assistant Jail Superintendent Flannery, and Jail Superintendent Jaimie Belcher. Plaintiff
has not clearly articulated a claim against any other Defendant, and therefore the Court
1 Plaintiff has also attached some grievances to his complaint which are not related to
the allegations in his complaint. The Court will not consider the grievances as separate
allegations since Plaintiff has not identified additional claims in the body of his
complaint.
will dismiss Defendants unidentified jail employees, Crossing Health Care, and
unidentified “Medical Services Doctor.” (Sec.Amd.Comp., p. 1).
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [5]. Plaintiff has no
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel and the Court cannot require an
attorney to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court can do is ask
for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992).
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court must ask two questions: “(1) has the
indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007),
citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff has demonstrated at least some attempt to find counsel to represent him.
However, Plaintiff’s claim before this Court is not complex and Plaintiff adequately
provided a factual basis for his claim as well as supporting exhibits. Plaintiff also
indicates he is a college graduate. (Plain. Mot., [5], p. 2). Plaintiff will also be able to
obtain supporting documents during discovery. In addition, once the Defendants are
served, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order which sets discovery deadlines and
provides information to assist Plaintiff during the discovery process. Based on the
record, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. [5].
Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff has filed various letters in this case. [11, 13, 14].
Plaintiff must not file letters, but instead may file a motion requesting a specific action.
In addition, Plaintiff may file a response to a motion filed by Defendants. Plaintiff is
also admonished he should not file exhibits with the Court unless they are attached to a
motion or response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court finds the Plaintiff alleges Defendants Sheriff Antonio Brown, Assistant Jail
Superintendent Flannery, and Jail Superintendent Jaimie Belcher violated
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights when they exposed Plaintiff to
conditions of confinement which posed a substantial risk of serious harm caused
by COVID- 19. The claim is stated against the Defendants in their individual
capacities only. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at
the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2) This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised to wait until
counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions, in order to give
Defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed
before Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as
premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless
otherwise directed by the Court.
3) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each Defendant a
waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from service to file an Answer. If
Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days
of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of
service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter an order setting
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
4) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address provided by
Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address shall
provide to the Clerk said Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for
effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained
only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed
by the Clerk.
5) Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver is sent by
the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all
defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent
pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. In general, an
answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule on the merits of
those positions unless and until a motion is filed by Defendants. Therefore, no
response to the answer is necessary or will be considered.
6) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of
his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will
file Plaintiff's document electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to
defense counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on
Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not
available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
7) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at his place
of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of any change in his
mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a
change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit,
with prejudice.
9) Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants’ counsel an authorization to
release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization
to Defendants’ Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) Deny Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to amend as moot, [8]; 2) Grant
Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15, [12]; 3) Deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, [5];
4) Dismiss Defendants unidentified jail employees, Crossing Health Care,
unidentified Medical Services Doctor, and any other Doe Defendants for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to by 28
U.S.C. §1915A; 5) Attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard
procedures; 6) Set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this
order for the court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling
deadlines; and 7) Enter the Court's standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2020.
s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE