Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Ambrose v. Central Management Services

March 4, 2009


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge


This action was initiated by 13 inmates at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center. The Court advised them of the potential pitfalls of multi-inmate litigation (see Doc. 17), and several inmates now seek to withdraw from the action. Accordingly, the motions to withdraw from Hale (Doc. 22), Koempel (Doc. 23), William R. Williams (Doc. 25), Kendall (Doc. 26), Cash (Docs. 27, 28) are GRANTED. It follows that the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis from these individuals (Docs. 7, 8, 9, 13, 14) are now MOOT.*fn1 MOTIONS TO AMEND AND/OR SUPPLEMENT

In their first such motion (Doc. 19), Plaintiffs attempt to amend their complaint by including their additions and deletions within the text of the motion. However, in this District,

[t]he original of a proposed amendment to a pleading or amended pleading itself should accompany the motion to amend so that it may be filed instanter if the motion is granted. All new material shall be underlined. It is sufficient to simply underline the names of new parties the first place they appear in amended pleadings. Similarly, when new claims or defenses are raised by amendment, it is sufficient that the number of the designated count or paragraphs identifying the amendments be underlined.

Local Rule 15.1; see FED.R.CIV.P. 15. Because Plaintiffs did not submit a copy of their proposed amended complaint, the instant motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiffs' motion to supplement (Doc. 21) is more perplexing. It seems to be an effort to explain some of the documents contained as exhibits to the original complaint, and the Court is unsure why Plaintiffs felt compelled to file this motion. However, at this time, the motion is GRANTED; the parties will consider the points raised in this motion when evaluating the exhibits in question.

Finally, Plaintiffs recently filed a motion to dismiss two of their claims (Doc. 29). Specifically, they wish to dismiss their claim regarding minimum wages (Count 1, ¶ 44), as well as their request for class certification. This motion is GRANTED.


Each Plaintiff states that he has been civilly committed to the Illinois Department of Corrections pursuant to the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act ("SDPA"), 725 ILCS 205/0.01 et seq. In turn, the I.D.O.C. has confined them in the Big Muddy River Correctional Center ("BMRCC"). According to the Department's website,

[t]he Big Muddy River Correctional Center is unique in that it is the only facility that houses sexually dangerous persons (SDPs). A sexually dangerous person is committed civilly receiving indeterminate sentences for sexual offenses. The treatment program not only deals with the sexual offenses, but with the mental illness, developmental issues, cognitive distortions, substance abuse, anger management and social skills. This is done through a variety of therapy and psychologogical educational groups such as Discovery Group, Rational Emotive Therapy group, Cycle Group and Victim Empathy and Relapse Prevention. The SDP Program has been housed at Big Muddy River Correctional Center since November 1995.*fn2

Count 1

Plaintiffs allege that defendants are violating their civil rights due to practices, policies, and regulations that do not conform to substantive due process requirements. They also allege, generally, that the conditions under which they are confined to not reasonably relate to or serve a legitimate penological interest or purpose, except merely to punish those who are committed under the SDPA. The general theme of this count is that because they have not been convicted of any crime, they should not be subjected to the same conditions as those who have been convicted. Rather, as pre-trial detainees, they assert that they should not be subjected to any conditions that could be considered "punishment" as opposed to "treatment" for their affliction.

Plaintiffs then set forth, in enumerated paragraphs, the various ways in which they believe they are mistreated. Specifically, but not exclusively, they allege the following examples of their treatment as being not conducive to the therapeutic treatment they should be receiving:

* They are confined to a facility within the perimeter of BMRCC, where they are essentially subjected to more restrictive conditions ...

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.