detainees entitled to adequate medical care
How later courts described this case
- detainees entitled to adequate medical care
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
JOVARIS LASTER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02021-JEH
JEROME COMBS DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
Order
Plaintiff Jovaris Laster, proceeding pro se and detained at the Jerome Combs
Detention Center, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of
his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). This case is before the Court for a merit review
of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must “screen”
Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action
if warranted. § 1915A. 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.” Id. In reviewing the
Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing
them in the Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United
States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff files suit against the Jerome Combs Detention Center (“JCDC”) and
Jerome Combs Medical Department Staff. When Plaintiff entered the JCDC on July
19, 2024, correctional officer Blanchette moved him to housing unit Flex A, Cell 1.
Plaintiff alleges that he told Blanchette he had epilepsy and a medical permit for a
bottom bunk, but Blanchette told Plaintiff he had to use the top bunk because
another inmate was already assigned the bottom bunk.
Plaintiff also alleges he did not receive his morning dose of his seizure
medication on July 21, 2024. Plaintiff informed a correctional officer, who said he
would call the nurse. Although it was only 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., the nurse allegedly
refused to give Plaintiff his medication because it would “overlap with [his] day
meds.” Id. at p. 5. Later that day, Plaintiff alleges he had an epileptic seizure, fell
off the top bunk onto the floor, and hit the right side of his head.
As a detainee, Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353-54 (7th Cir.
2018) (detainees entitled to adequate medical care). To establish a Fourteenth
Amendment violation, a detainee must show: “(1) there was an objectively serious
medical need; (2) the defendant committed a volitional act concerning the
[plaintiff’s] medical need; (3) that act was objectively unreasonable under the
circumstances in terms of responding to the [plaintiff’s] medical need; and (4) the
defendant act[ed] purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly with
respect to the risk of harm.” Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., Illinois, 40 F.4th 824, 828
(7th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds that he has stated a plausible
Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against (1) correctional
officer Blanchette for allegedly assigning Plaintiff to the top bunk on July 19, 2024,
despite knowing that Plaintiff had epilepsy and a medical permit for a bottom
bunk, and (2) the unidentified nurse who allegedly refused to give Plaintiff his
morning dose of seizure medication on July 21, 2024. The Clerk is directed to add
correctional officer Blanchette and nurse Jane Doe as Defendants. Plaintiff is
advised that a Doe Defendant cannot be served, and he is responsible for
identifying nurse Jane Doe.
Plaintiff did not include allegations against other medical staff members in
his Complaint. Therefore, Defendant Jerome Combs Medical Department Staff is
dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff also named the JCDC as a Defendant, but a
jail is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Dye v. Wargo, 253 F.3d 296, 299
(7th Cir. 2001); see also Nava v. Sangamon Cnty. Jail, No. 14-3090, 2014 WL 1320259,
at *2 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2014) (Sangamon County Jail is not a person that may be sued
under § 1983). The JCDC is dismissed with prejudice.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel asking the Court to
appoint an attorney to represent him. (Doc. 5). “There is no right to court-
appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711
(7th Cir. 2014). When evaluating a request for counsel, the Court must consider:
“(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, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). Demonstrating a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel “is
a mandatory, threshold inquiry that must be determined before moving to the
second inquiry.” Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Davis v.
Moroney, 857 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2017)). Plaintiff has not demonstrated a
reasonable attempt to secure his own lawyer. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is
denied. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he is directed to attach copies of letters he
sent to or received from prospective counsel and list attorneys or law firms he
contacted and indicate whether he received a response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) According to the Court's merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case shall proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against (1) Defendant Blanchette for allegedly assigning
Plaintiff to the top bunk on July 19, 2024, despite knowing that Plaintiff had
epilepsy and a medical permit for a bottom bunk, and (2) Defendant Jane Doe for
allegedly refusing to give Plaintiff his morning dose of seizure medication on July
21, 2024. Additional claims shall not be included in the case above, except in the
Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15.
2) The Clerk is directed to ADD Blanchette (Correctional Officer) and
Jane Doe (Nurse) as Defendants.
3) Plaintiff is advised that an unidentified Doe Defendant cannot be
served. As a result, the Sheriff of Kankakee County, Michael Downey, will be
named as a Defendant, in his official capacity only, for the sole purpose of assisting
Plaintiff in the identification of Defendant Jane Doe. The Clerk is directed to ADD
Sheriff Downey as a Defendant. After Defendant Jane Doe has been identified, the
Sheriff may move to be dismissed. Plaintiff is placed on notice that it is his
responsibility, through initial disclosures and discovery, to identify Defendant
Jane Doe. The failure to do so will result in her dismissal without prejudice.
4) Defendant Jerome Combs Medical Department Staff is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. Defendant Jerome Combs Detention Center
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE these
Defendants.
5) Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel [5] is DENIED.
6) This case is now in the process of service. The Court advises Plaintiff
to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions 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.
7) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing a waiver of
service. If Defendants fail to sign and return a waiver of service to the Clerk within
30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect
formal service through the U.S. Marshals Service on Defendants and will require
Defendants to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d)(2).
8) Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the Clerk
sends the waiver of service. 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 Defendants file a motion. Therefore,
no response to the answer is necessary or will be considered. If Defendants have
not filed an answer 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 a scheduling order setting
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
9) If Defendants no longer work at the address Plaintiff provided, the
entity for whom Defendants worked while at that address shall submit to the Clerk
Defendants’ current work address, or, if not known, Defendants’ forwarding
address. This information shall be used only for effectuating service.
Documentation of Defendants’ forwarding address shall be retained only by the
Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
10) This District uses electronic filing, which means that after Defendants’
counsel has filed an appearance, Defendants’ counsel will automatically receive
electronic notice of any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk.
Plaintiff does not need to mail to Defendants’ counsel copies of motions and other
documents that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to
discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not filed
with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly
to Defendants’ counsel. Discovery requests or responses sent to the Clerk will be
returned unfiled unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to compel.
Discovery does not begin until Defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance and
the Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process
in more detail.
11) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at
Plaintiff’s place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for
the deposition.
12) Plaintiff shall immediately inform 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.
13) Plaintiff shall be provided a copy of all pertinent medical records
upon request.
14) Within 10 days of receiving from defense counsel an authorization to
release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization
to defense counsel. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective
order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
15) The Clerk is directed to 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.
It is so ordered.
Entered: February 11, 2025
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge