Jones v. Granite City Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

GARRETT DOUGLAS JONES, #83695, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-01401-JPG

)

GRANITE CITY POLICE DEPT., )

DETECTIVE ROZELL, and )

DETECTIVE BEISHERS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Garrett Douglas Jones, a pretrial detainee at Madison County Jail, brings this

action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Granite City Police Detectives

Rozell and Beishers inflicted serious injuries and withheld medical treatment until Plaintiff

confessed to swallowing drugs on or around May 9, 2022. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-14). Plaintiff seeks

money damages from the defendants. (Id.).

The Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires

the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or 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). The factual allegations in a pro se complaint are liberally construed.

Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

The Complaint

Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-14): On or

around May 9, 2022, Plaintiff was taken to Granite City Police Department for questioning in

connection with an undisclosed matter. (Id. at 5, 12). At some point, Detectives Rozell and

Beishers walked Plaintiff outside of the police station, and he ran from them. (Id.). The two

detectives caught him while he was climbing a fence. (Id.). They punched him in the ribs and

head until he fell from the fence. (Id.). Other staff members joined them until it “seemed like the

entire day shift” took part in the beating. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff sustained a concussion, broken ribs,

lacerations on his thigh, puncture wounds on his stomach, and a “split” testicle. (Id. at 5, 12).

Plaintiff was refused medical treatment until he confessed to swallowing drugs. (Id.).

In fact, Detective Rozell told Plaintiff that he “would make this worse” until he confessed. (Id.).

When Plaintiff finally admitted to the crime, he was taken to the hospital for treatment of his

injuries. (Id.). Some injuries were documented and treated, and others were not. (Id.). However,

the toxicology report confirms no presence of drugs in his system. (Id.). Plaintiff now brings

claims against Granite City Police Department, Detective Rozell, and Detective Beishers for police

brutality, denial of medical treatment, a coerced confession, and denial of equal protection of the

law. (Id.).

Preliminary Dismissal

Granite City Police Department is named as a defendant, but no claims survive screening

against the police department. This entity is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The police department likely represents Plaintiff’s attempt to hold the municipality liable for his

injuries. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 694 (1978). However,

municipal liability under § 1983 arises from the execution of a government policy or custom that

causes a constitutional injury, and the allegations point to no policy or custom that caused a

constitutional injury to occur here. Accordingly, Granite City Police Department shall be

dismissed with prejudice from this action.

Discussion

Based on the allegations, the Court now recognizes the following enumerated counts in the

pro se civil rights Complaint:

Count 1: Detectives Rozell and Beishers used excessive force against Plaintiff on or

around May 9, 2022.

Count 2: Detectives Rozell and Beishers denied Plaintiff adequate medical treatment

for the injuries they inflicted on or around May 9, 2022.

Count 3: Detectives Rozell and Beishers coerced Plaintiff to confess to ingestion of

drugs when he ingested none on or around May 9, 2022.

Count 4: Detectives Rozell and Beishers denied Plaintiff equal protection of the law

on or around May 9, 2022.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should

be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.1

Count 1

Different standards apply to excessive force claims brought by arrestees, pretrial detainees,

and sentenced prisoners. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 400 (2015). Because Plaintiff

explicitly alleges that he was a pretrial detainee at the time he ran from the two detectives, this

claim is analyzed under the standard applicable to a detainee. With that said, the Court would also

allow this claim to proceed past screening under the Fourth Amendment standard applicable to

arrestees and the Eighth Amendment standard applicable to convicted persons.

Pretrial detainees cannot be punished at all. Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 400 (citations omitted).

A pretrial detainee bringing an excessive force claim “must show only that the force purposely or

knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” Id. No showing regarding the

defendant’s state of mind is required. Id. The allegations in the Complaint articulate a Fourteenth

1 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 to relief that is plausible on its face”).

Amendment claim of excessive force against both defendants for their conduct on or around

May 9, 2022. See, e.g., Maus v. Baker, 641 F. App’x 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2016) (allowing excessive

force claim brought by pretrial detainee to proceed against jail officials who choked and pushed

him). Accordingly, Count 1 shall proceed against Detectives Rozell and Beishers.

Count 2

Count 2 is also governed by different standards that depend on the plaintiff’s status as an

arrestee, detainee, or prisoner at the time his claim arose. Because Plaintiff identifies himself as a

detainee, the Court will apply the Fourteenth Amendment due process standard to the claim at

screening. However, the allegations articulate a claim against both defendants, regardless of his

status and the applicable standard.

A two-part inquiry governs a pretrial detainee’s claim for inadequate medical care.

McCann v. Ogle Cty., Illinois, 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018); Miranda v. County of Lake, 900

F.3d 335, 353 (7th Cir. 2018). The first part of the inquiry examines whether the “defendants acted

purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly when they considered the consequences of

their handling of [plaintiff’s] case.” McCann, 909 F.3d at 886 (citing Miranda, 900 F.3d at 353).

The second part of this inquiry asks whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable

based on the totality of circumstances faced by the defendant. Id. The allegations suggest that

both defendants acted purposefully, knowingly, or even recklessly—and in an objectively

unreasonable manner—when delaying or denying Plaintiff’s medical treatment for a concussion,

broken ribs, lacerations, and abrasions on or around May 9, 2022. Count 2 shall therefore proceed

against both of the detectives.

Count 3

Plaintiff claims that Detectives Rozell and Beishers coerced him into confessing to

ingestion of drugs by withholding treatment for his injuries until he involuntarily confessed to

swallowing them. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and the facts suggest

that Plaintiff may have confessed to some crime involuntarily. Whether he actually did so or not

is unclear because Plaintiff offers no additional information about related charges or convictions.

The allegations describe a possible, not plausible, claim under the Fifth Amendment, and this does

not satisfy the Twombly pleading standard. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A plaintiff fails to state

a claim if he does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Id. Accordingly, Count 3 shall be dismissed without prejudice against the detectives.

Count 4

In order to pursue a claim of discrimination under the equal protection clause, Plaintiff

must set forth allegations showing that he “is a member of a protected class,” that he “is otherwise

similarly situated to members of the unprotected class,” and that he “was treated differently from

members of the unprotected class.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 916 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting

McNabola v. Chicago Transit Auth., 10 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing McMillian v. Svetanoff,

878 F.2d 186, 189 (7th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff’s allegations do not establish any elements of this

claim. He simply refers to an equal protection claim in passing. Count 4 shall be dismissed without

prejudice against the detectives.

Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that COUNTS 1 and 2 survive screening against Defendants ROZELL

and BEISHERS in their individual capacities. COUNTS 3 and 4 against Defendants ROZELL

and BEISHERS are DISMISSED without prejudice, and GRANITE CITY POLICE

DPEARTMENT is DISMISSED with prejudice, all for failure to state a claim for relief.

Defendants Rozell and Beishers 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.

Because at least one claim arises from the denial of medical care, the Clerk’s Office

is DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to

TERMINATE Defendant GRANITE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT in CM/ECF.

With regard to COUNTS 1 and 2, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants

ROZELL and BEISHERS: (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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s

place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If any 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 that 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 can no longer 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. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or

disclosed by the Clerk.

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, regardless of the

fact that his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made for leave to proceed without

being required to prepay fees and costs or give security for the same, the applicant and his or her

attorney were deemed to have entered into a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the

action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against

plaintiff and remit the balance to plaintiff. Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/28/2022

s/ J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge

Notice

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit

and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants

will enter their 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 all of the defendants have filed 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 the defendants before filing any motions,

in order 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.

The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by

the Court.