The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JARED M. STAAKE, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-3166
)
SANGAMON COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, et al., )
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 1).
The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” Plaintiff’s 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.” § 1915A.
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Sangamon County Jail (“Jail”), files suit
against the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department, Jail Administrators John Doe #1 and
John Doe #2, and Officer Banks.
Plaintiff alleges he has a lengthy and well-documented history of mental illness
and psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff says he lost both parents at a young age, was deemed
emotionally disturbed, and diagnosed with cognitive and behavioral disabilities. Plaintiff
also states he was diagnosed with ADHD, severe depression, and an anxiety disorder,
prescribed a plethora of psychotropic medications to treat his conditions, and deemed
seriously mentally ill (“SMI”).
On or about March 22, 2023, Plaintiff was charged with various state crimes and
detained at the Jail, where he allegedly experienced severe anxiety, depression, and
suicidal thoughts. Plaintiff notified Officers Votava and March, who are not named as
parties, about his mental condition multiple times and requested mental health services.
Plaintiff does not specify when he spoke with the officers.
Plaintiff was placed in a two-man cell with approximately 10-12 other arrestees.
Plaintiff states that his palms and feet sweated, his heart pounded, and he experienced
chest pains. He also became light-headed, lost his appetite, could not form rational
thoughts or complete sentences, and contemplated taking his own life. He alleges that he
again explained his condition to Officer Votava, to no avail. Plaintiff does not indicate
when this conversation occurred.
Every day from March 22, 2023, until April 1, 2023, Plaintiff asked each staff
member he saw for mental health treatment, but no care was provided. Plaintiff does not
specify who he talked to.
Plaintiff received news that his best friend passed away on April 1, 2023. Plaintiff
says the news of his friend’s death severely affected his mental state, and he “actively
sought mechanisms to hurt himself,” but his cellmate encouraged him not to.
On or about April 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a grievance (#110317239) regarding the
lack of mental health services at the Jail. On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff received a response,
which stated mental health “is not here everyday.” (Doc. 1 at 7). The same day, Plaintiff
told Officer D. Metz, who is not named as a party, about his condition and requested
mental health treatment. Plaintiff does not indicate whether Officer Metz obtained
treatment for him.
On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff briefly spoke to Amber, a mental health professional
(“MHP”), who is not named as a party. Amber advised Plaintiff that mental health
services are not available every day due to understaffing.
On April 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed another grievance (#11035083) regarding the lack
of mental health services at the Jail. Plaintiff also spoke with Paige, a MHP who is not
named as a party, about his mental health issues. Paige allegedly confirmed Amber’s
statements about understaffing and informed Plaintiff that she and Amber cannot
adequately satisfy inmates’ mental health needs due to understaffing and a lack of
resources.
On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff “asked [Defendant] Officer Banks multiple times to speak
to a MHP regarding his MH issues and suicidal thoughts.” (Doc. 1 at 9). Plaintiff alleges
that Officer Banks “repeatedly stated that he is ‘not doing it.’” Id. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff
“again asked Officer Banks, Banks repeatedly stated, ‘not doing it.’” Id.
Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer from untreated and unmanaged mental
health ailments. Plaintiff alleges he suffers from insomnia and sleeps only 2-3 hours each
night; he has suicidal thoughts and engages in self-mutilation; he has difficulty
concentrating, forming complete sentences, and speaking clearly; and he also experiences
chest pains, rapid heartbeat, heavy breathing and hyperventilation, and loss of appetite.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department violated
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to provide the requisite mental health
care to its inmate population that meets minimal constitutional standards and violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to reasonably accommodate its mentally ill
inmates.
ANALYSIS
Defendant Officer Banks
Plaintiff alleges he asked Defendant Officer Banks “to speak to a MHP regarding
his MH issues and suicidal thoughts” on May 1 and 2, 2023. Id. at 9. Defendant Banks
allegedly responded, “not doing it.” Id.
As a pre-trial detainee, Plaintiff’s claim for constitutionally inadequate mental
health care arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Klebanowski v. Sheahan, 540 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff must have enough
evidence for the jury to find that a defendant acted “purposefully, knowingly, or
recklessly” and that the medical treatment was “objectively unreasonable.” Turner v. Paul,
953 F.3d 1011, 1015 (7th Cir. 2020); Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir.
2018). The objectively unreasonable standard requires the Court to consider “‘the totality
of facts and circumstances faced by the individual alleged to have provided medical care
and to gauge objectively - without regard to any subjective belief held by the individual
- whether the response was reasonable.’” Turner, 953 F.3d at 1015 (quoting McCann v.
Ogle Cnty., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018)).
Plaintiff’s threadbare allegations against Defendant Officer Banks are insufficient
to state a colorable deliberate indifference claim. It is unclear if Plaintiff was requesting
immediate mental health treatment and Defendant refused to provide any assistance, or
alternatively, if Plaintiff was asking Defendant Banks to simply inform mental health staff
about his needs and suicidal thoughts. Defendant Banks is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department violated
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to provide constitutionally adequate
mental health care to its inmate population.
To allege a constitutional violation, Plaintiff must establish that the deliberate
indifference to which he was subjected came about as a result of a custom or policy
established by the Sheriff’s Department. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “Three forms of unconstitutional policies or customs are
recognized in this context: ‘(1) an express policy that, when enforced, causes a
constitutional deprivation; (2) a widespread practice that, although not authorized by
written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute
a custom or usage with the force of law; or (3) an allegation that the constitutional injury
was caused by a person with final policy-making authority.’” Klebanowski, 540 F.3d at 237
(quoting Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff’s vague
allegations do not establish a Monell claim against the Sheriff’s Department.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Sheriff’s Department violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to reasonably accommodate its disabled (mentally ill)
inmates. “Congress enacted the ADA ‘to provide a clear and comprehensive national
mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.’ The
Act ‘forbids discrimination against persons with disabilities in three major areas of public
life: (1) employment, which is covered by Title I of the statute; (2) public services,
programs and activities, which are the subjects of Title II; and (3) public and private
lodging, which is covered by Title III.’ It is now well-settled that prisons and correctional
facilities are covered by Title II.” Phipps v. Sheriff of Cook Cnty., 681 F. Supp. 2d 899, 913
(N.D. Ill. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
To allege a violation of Title II, Plaintiff must sufficiently plead: “[1] that he is a
‘qualified individual with a disability,’ [2] that he was denied ‘the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity’ or otherwise subjected to discrimination by such
an entity, and [3] that the denial or discrimination was ‘by reason of’ his disability.” Id. at
913–14 (citing Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr., 103 F.3d 558, 560 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 12131)). Plaintiff’s sparse allegations do not establish a claim against the Sheriff’s
Department for an alleged violation of the ADA.
Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Defendants Jail Administrators John Doe #1 and John Doe #2
Finally, Plaintiff named Jail Administrators John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 as
Defendants, but he did not include any allegations pertaining to these Defendants in his
Complaint.
An individual is liable under § 1983, however, only if he or she personally
participated in the alleged deprivation. Palmer, 327 F.3d at 594. Defendants cannot be held
liable merely because of their supervisory position as Jail Administrators, as the doctrine
of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not apply to actions filed under § 1983.
Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). Defendants John Doe #1 and John Doe
#2 are DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have the
opportunity to file an amended complaint within 21 days from the entry of this Order.
Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace his complaint in its entirety. The amended
complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments
are not accepted. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in the dismissal
of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
ENTERED: 6/14/2023
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
U.S. District Court Judge