Britten v. Wills

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CLARENCE BRITTEN, #Y32384, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 3:22-cv-00409-SMY

)

ANTHONY WILLS, )

CARRIE MORRIS, and )

S. BUETTNER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Clarence Britten, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed the

instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at

Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). This case is now before the Court for preliminary review

of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous,

malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant

must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): Plaintiff has been

diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder, impulse control disorder, antisocial personality

disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and unspecified depressive disorder. He

experiences paranoia, anxiety, suicidality, and heightened aggression. He was hospitalized in

mental health facilities on various occasions before his incarceration.

Plaintiff has been in segregation at Menard since November 2019. Social worker Carrie

Morris and mental health professional S. Buettner are aware of Plaintiff’s mental health disorders

but have denied him adequate mental health treatment. Plaintiff has suffered deterioration of his

mental health due to the conditions of confinement at Menard and inadequate mental health care.

He has engaged in cutting and genital mutilation, set himself on fire, swallowed metal objects, and

drank disinfectants. He has been hospitalized five times due to self-inflicted harm and has been

placed on suicide watch at least seventeen times. He currently takes forced medication because

Defendants concluded that he has no self-control.

Plaintiff has notified Morris and Buettner of mistreatment by corrections officers due to

his mental health disorders. They disregarded his allegations and allowed security staff to interfere

with his treatment based on their personal relationships with officers. They have denied and/or

ignored his request for a transfer and better mental health treatment. Plaintiff has gone on hunger

strikes and attempted suicide to bring attention to his issues to no avail. He is at a substantial risk

of death.

Plaintiff wrote multiple grievances regarding on these issues. He submitted an emergency

grievance on November 26, 2021, detailing the denial of adequate mental health treatment and

seeking a transfer and higher level of care. Warden Wills granted expedited review, but Plaintiff’s

grievance was ultimately denied by the grievance officer and Warden Wills. Warden Wills failed

to intervene even though he was aware of the denial of adequate mental health care.

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this

pro se action: 1

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Anthony Wills, Carrie Morris, and

S. Buettner for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

serious medical and mental health needs related to his mental health

disorders.

1 Any claim mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed without prejudice as inadequately

pled under the Twombly pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible

on its face.”).

Plaintiff asserts his claims against each defendant in his/her individual and official capacities. He

seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Discussion

Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and

unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical

needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state a claim, a prisoner must allege

facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the

defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. “[D]eliberate indifference

may be found where an official knows about unconstitutional conduct and facilitates, approves,

condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015). “[A]

prison official's knowledge of prison conditions learned from an inmate's communications can,

under some circumstances, constitute sufficient knowledge of the conditions to require the officer

to exercise his or her authority and to take the needed action to investigate and, if necessary, to

rectify the offending condition.” Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 1996).

The allegations in the Complaint are sufficient for the claim in Count 1 to proceed against

Anthony Wills, Carrie Morris, and S. Buettner. Anthony Wills, in his official capacity as the

Warden of Menard Correctional Center, is the proper defendant for the injunctive relief claim.

See, Gonzales v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011). But Plaintiff’s claims for monetary

damages may only be pursued against state officials in their individual capacities. Brown v. Budz,

904 F.3d 904, 918 (7th Cir. 2005); Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the official capacity claims against Morris and Buettner are dismissed without

prejudice.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

contemporaneously with his Complaint. (Doc. 5). He seeks a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) directing his immediate release from segregation and a preliminary injunction directing

his transfer to a facility that will provide a higher level of mental health care. (Id., pp. 3, 9).

A TRO is an order issued without notice to the party to be enjoined, but it may last no more

than fourteen (14) days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Further, a TRO may issue without notice only

if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in

opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

The Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not clearly demonstrate that he will suffer

irreparable harm before the defendants can be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Moreover, although a mentally ill inmate’s safety is of paramount importance, courts rarely

interfere with prison housing decisions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a TRO is DENIED

without prejudice.

Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction, which may issue only after the adverse party

is given notice and an opportunity to oppose the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, the

Warden of Menard Correctional Center is ordered to file a response to the request for injunctive

relief within 14 days of service.

Disposition

Count 1 will proceed against Anthony Wills, Carrie Morris, and S. Buettner in their

individual capacities. The injunctive relief claim will proceed against Anthony Wills, Warden of

Menard Correctional Center in his official capacity.

The Clerk shall prepare for Anthony Wills (official and individual capacities), Carrie

Morris, and S. Buettner: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a

Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail

these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of

employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service

of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk

shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on the Defendant, and the Court will require

the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

If a Defendant cannot 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 sending the forms as

directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be

retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the

Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to

Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit

Review Order.

The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) is

DENIED in part. Specifically, Plaintiff’s request for a TRO is DENIED without prejudice. THE

WARDEN OF MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER IS ORDERED TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 5)

WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes

the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the

costs, regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court and the 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).

Finally, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2022

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your lawsuit and serve

them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendants will enter an

appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date

of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days

or more. When Defendants have filed their Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order

containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to

wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions, to give the 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 specifically directed to do so.