United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
S. Shah Judge
Raymone Crockwell, who uses a wheelchair, was a pretrial
detainee at the Cook County Jail in 2012 and 2013. He sued
Cook County and the Sheriff, Thomas Dart, under: § 202
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C 12132;
§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §
794(a); and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. .Defendants move
for summary judgment, , , on all of Crockwell's
claims. Crockwell acquiesces to judgment on his § 1983
claims,  at 1-2, and moves for partial summary judgment
on liability two of his ADA claims. .
following reasons, defendants are granted summary judgment on
Crockwell's § 1983 claims and on some of his ADA
claims, and Crockwell is granted summary judgment as to
liability on his ADA claims concerning the M-house and
Leighton courthouse toilets.
judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Spurling v. C
& M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir.
2014); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any
material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment has
the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “Cross-motions
[for summary judgment] must be evaluated together, and the
court may not grant summary judgment for either side unless
the admissible evidence as a whole-from both
motions-establishes that no material facts are in
dispute.” Bloodworth v. Vill. of Greendale,
475 Fed.App'x 92, 95 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Dynegy
Mktg. & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 517
(7th Cir. 2011)).
gunshot wound in 2009, Raymone Crockwell became a paraplegic,
unable to use his lower body and needing a wheelchair to
ambulate.  ¶ 4;  ¶ 2. His physical
condition required the use of catheters to urinate, and he
needed to manually evacuate his bowels with a gloved hand.
 ¶ 13. Crockwell was in custody at the Cook County
Jail from June 6, 2012 through March 29, 2013.  ¶ 5;
 ¶ 1. The first day he was at the jail, Crockwell
was housed in Division 10, which was not accessible for a
wheelchair-using detainee.  ¶ 31. He did not shower
or relieve himself for the entire day he was in Division 10,
but he did not request a shower or bathroom, and he was
eventually moved to Division 2.  ¶ 31. Except for
three days in January 2013 when he was placed in isolation,
Crockwell was housed in Division 2, Dorm 2 for the remaining
several months. He was assigned to live in M-house from June
7, 2012 until August 28, 2012, and in N-house from August 28,
2012 through March 29, 2013.  ¶¶ 7-8; 
¶¶ 8, 33.
his time in Division 2, Crockwell was never unable to shower
although at times the shower handrail was loose and sometimes
the shower was broken.  ¶ 32. There was never a
shortage of catheters or gloves for his use, 
¶¶ 13, 36, but while he was in the M-house, the
ADA-accessible toilet broke.  ¶ 16;  ¶ 10.
Crockwell had to use a regular toilet with the assistance of
a toilet seat cover, which raised the height of the
non-accessible toilet seat and was unstable. 
¶¶ 12-14. He reported the broken toilet to
correctional officers, who told them they could not do
anything about it.  ¶ 11. Crockwell tried to use the
regular toilet but fell to the ground on one occasion in
August 2012 because the cover was unstable.  ¶¶
16-17;  ¶¶ 10, 15. After the fall, Crockwell
experienced hip and back pains lasting until the next day.
 ¶ 18;  ¶ 16. He received ibuprofen from
another detainee and informed a correctional officer that he
had fallen, but he did not go to the hospital, and he has not
sought treatment for a back injury since leaving the jail.
 ¶¶ 18, 28. There were work orders to repair
handicap railings in the M-house bathroom on June 21, July,
9, and August 23, 2012,  ¶ 20,  but no orders to
fix the ADA-accessible toilet or any toilet seat during that
time; in August 2012, multiple bathroom inspections noted
that the toilet was not working.  ¶ 10;  at
74-80. While the ADA toilet was inoperable, Crockwell never
asked to be taken to another toilet or moved from that
division.  ¶ 29. Crockwell submitted no grievances
during the nine months he was at the jail and did not inform
either of the two social workers assigned to his dorm in the
M-house that there were any problems with any of the
facilities.  ¶ 26, 31.
did not have any problems using bathroom facilities while he
was assigned to the N-house.  ¶ 19. Even when shower
rails became loose, they were still usable and were fixed.
 ¶ 15. When the toilets required periodic
maintenance, they were fixed and regular toilets were
available with handicapped chairs.  ¶ 15. For a few
days in January 2013, Crockwell was held in an isolation cell
because he exhibited flu-like symptoms, and he was unable to
use the isolation cell shower because of his disability. 
detained at the jail, Crockwell was required to attend
hearings at the Leighton courthouse on a near-monthly basis.
 ¶ 17. Wheelchair-using detainees were brought out
of their living unit to a tunnel area before being brought
over the Leighton court building and were the last persons to
be called in the morning.  ¶ 18. While waiting for
court, Crockwell's wheelchair did not fit in the bullpen
bathroom.  ¶ 21. Prior to April 2014, no
ADA-accessible bathroom was available to detainees at the
Leighton court building.  ¶ 19. As a result,
Crockwell was unable to use a bathroom and at times soiled
himself.  ¶ 21;  ¶ 20.
ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims
seek summary judgment on Crockwell's ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims. To establish a violation of Title
II of the ADA, Crockwell must show that (1) he is a
“qualified individual with a disability, ” (2) he
was denied “the benefits of the services, programs, or
activities of a public entity” or otherwise subjected
to discrimination by an entity, and (3) the denial or
discrimination was “by reason of” his disability.
Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr., 103 F.3d 558, 560 (7th
Cir. 1996). The Rehabilitation Act claim is functionally
identical, with the additional requirement that the relevant
state agency accept federal funds, which all states do.
Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir.
2015). There is no dispute that the Sheriff and Cook County
are “public entities” subject to Title II of the
ADA.  ¶ 5.
recover compensatory damages for alleged violations of the
ADA or Rehabilitation Act, Crockwell must show that the
discrimination was intentional. Strominger v. Brock,
592 Fed.App'x 508, 511 (7th Cir. 2014). The Seventh
Circuit has yet to decide whether discriminatory animus or
deliberate indifference is required to show intentional
discrimination, but mere negligence is insufficient under
either standard. Id. The parties agree that
Crockwell is a qualified individual with a disability. They
dispute whether he was denied access to services (or was
subjected to other discrimination) on the basis of his
disability and whether there is sufficient evidence in the
factual record to show intentional discrimination.