Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Monahan

January 10, 2008

ALLEN L. MOORE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS MONAHAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Allen L. Moore, currently a detainee in the custody of the Illinois Department of Human Services ("DHS") under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1 et seq. ("SVP Act"),*fn1 brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events that occurred at the Joliet Treatment and Detention Facility ("TDF").*fn2 Defendants Thomas Monahan, Darrell Sanders, and Tarry Williams ("DHS Defendants") filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn3 Defendants Liberty Healthcare Corporation, Shan Jumper, and Gerald Grisphover ("Liberty Defendants"), as well as Defendant Carol Vance, Director of Health Care Services, have also filed motions to dismiss.

For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint." Christensen v. County of Boone, Ill., 483 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint need only include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which is rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80 (1957)); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a plaintiff's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1959 (2007); see also EEOC. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). As the Seventh Circuit recently explained, the Supreme Court's decision in "Twombly did not signal a switch to fact-pleading in the federal courts." Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200). "[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200. In addition, the Court construes Moore's pro se Complaint liberally. See Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2006).

BACKGROUND

I. Cell Reassignment

In his Complaint, Moore alleges that on December 19, 2005, at about 2:35 p.m., Defendant Jack Graham told him that the cell assignment committee had reassigned him to a cell already occupied by inmate Vincent Limpscomb. Moore alleges that he told Graham that he did not want to move in with Limpscomb because Limpscomb outweighed Moore by 80 pounds and they did not get along. Moore informed Graham that he would move cells, but not into a cell with just anyone. Graham then informed Moore that he did not have an option in the matter -- either he moved in with Limpscomb or they would place him on secure lockdown. Moore further alleges that he did not argue with Graham, but asked him if he could get some ice. Graham gave Moore permission to do so. After he got his ice, Graham and a security therapist escorted Moore back to his cell, which Moore entered without incident.

II. Extraction of Moore From His Cell

Shortly after Moore returned to his cell, Defendants Graham and Tarry Williams came to his cell and told him that they were there to confiscate his personal property, informing him that if he refused to move into the cell with Limpscomb, they would move Moore's property there. Moore also alleges that Williams refused his request for an inventory list and receipt of his property.

Moore further maintains that at about 3:00 p.m., Defendants Williams, Graham, Bernard Akpan, Leslie Hogan, Shawndo Cleveland, Tony Humphrey, and Timothy Burnette came to his cell. Williams and Akpan then ordered Graham, Hogan, Cleveland, and Humphrey to extract Moore from his cell, while Burnette videotaped the extraction. Moore claims he was punched and kicked multiple times and then dragged onto the walk way.

Also, Moore alleges that Defendants Thomas Monahan and Darrell Sanders were aware of this attack because they initially approved and ordered it. Moore also claims that Defendants Monahan, Sanders, Williams, Shan Jumper, Lea Chankin, and the Liberty Healthcare Corporation approved of a "policy" of moving a detainee's personal property to the cell to which the detainee had refused to move because he could not get along with the cell's current occupant. Moore alleges that this policy -- in effect -- placed the personal property in the care of the person with whom the detainee could not get along. Moore alleges that because he refused to give up his personal property, he was physically assaulted and suffered injuries to his head and back and had blood in his urine.

III. Medical Treatment

Moore further claims that after the alleged assault he asked Defendant Tammy Chasteen if he could see a doctor. She told him that he looked fine to her. Shortly thereafter, Moore alleges that he became dizzy and fell onto the floor of the observation cell in which he had been placed. Chasteen then called the medical health care unit, allegedly stating that she thought Moore was faking it. Thereafter, Defendants Williams, Akpan, Thompson, and a nurse came to the observation cell. Williams and Akpan told Moore to get up so that he could be handcuffed. Moore told them he was in extreme pain and could not get up off the floor. Williams responded that if he did not get up to be handcuffed, then the nurse would not examine him. Further, Moore alleges that the nurse argued with Williams and Akpan and that they finally allowed her to enter the observation cell to examine Moore who was bleeding profusely from a deep cut on his head. Thereafter, Moore was taken to the hospital care unit where his cut was bandaged. Several days later a doctor saw him, gave him pain medication, and scheduled him for X-rays.

IV. Incidents After Moore's Alleged Assault

Next, Moore alleges that Williams -- in order to prevent Moore from filing a lawsuit -- gave orders that no one was allowed to talk to Moore, refused to allow Moore to call his family or his attorney, and allegedly made false and fraudulent charges against Moore so that he would violate his parole and accordingly would be returned to prison. In addition, Moore claims that when Defendants returned his personal property on October 4, 2006, family photographs and legal documents that he intends to use at his SVP Act trial were missing.

V. Cell Assignment & Cell Conditions

Finally, Moore alleges that Monahan, Sanders, Jumper, Chankin, Vance, and Liberty Healthcare use cell assignments as a means to pressure pre-trial detainees into consenting to sexual offender treatment. Moore also alleges that he was housed in a cell that was roach-infested year round and plagued with "wasp spiders" and bees during the summer. He claims the water was foul and contained pollutants. He also alleges that his small cell contained a double steel bunk, toilet, sink, but had no chair or table. Moore further alleges that his cell was inadequately heated in the winter and extremely hot in the summer.

ANALYSIS

I. Moore's Claims

In his Complaint, Moore brings several constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a constitutional claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a government official (1) acting under color of state law, (2) deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Christensen v. County of Boone, IL, 483 F.3d 454, 459 (7th Cir. 2007).

A. Sharing Cell with Limpscomb

First, Moore alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they informed him that he would be moved into a cell already occupied by Limpscomb, although Moore objected to this move because he did not get along with Limpscomb and Limpscomb outweighed him. Moore also argues that this cell reassignment was contrary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.