United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge.
Rodney Eugene Black, a pretrial detainee at the Saline County
Jail, brings this pro se action for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 1). Black was granted leave to file an
amended complaint after this Court screened his initial
complaint and determined that he failed to present sufficient
facts or allegations to state a claim. Black filed his
amended complaint in a timely fashion, making claims of
deliberate indifference for the treatment of a hand injury,
deliberate indifference for the denial of psychiatric care,
and a due process violation for prolonged placement in
solitary confinement (Doc. 10). In conjunction with his
claims, Black named Jill Moore and Dan Williams. He seeks
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
alleges that he arrived at Saline County Jail in April 2016
(Doc. 10 at 5). At the time of his arrival, Black apparently
needed surgery on his hand, and was actually scheduled for
surgery with the Veterans Administration on April 18, 2016
(Id.). He informed Defendant Jill Moore that he was
scheduled for surgery and she assured him that his needs
would be addressed, but he missed the surgery on April 18
(Id.). He alleges that Dr. Dan Williams was also
responsible for working with Moore to get him the needed
surgery (Id.). Black's hand condition went
untreated from three months and it healed improperly
(Id.). He alleges that when he finally saw a surgeon
his thumb was declared inoperable (Id.). As a result
of the lack of treatment, Black claims that his thumb is
permanently disabled (Id.).
addition to the complaints about his thumb, Black also claims
that he has not received adequate psychiatric care
(Id.). He alleges that he made Moore aware of his
psychiatric needs, and that he was prescribed medications by
Dr. Williams without an appointment, but he does not feel
that these actions were appropriate or sufficient to target
his needs (Id.).
Black claims that he has been in solitary confinement for a
year (Id.). He does not allege what about this type
of confinement is wrong, whether or not he has had
administrative review of this placement, or who is
responsible for his ongoing confinement in solitary
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se Complaint into the following enumerated
claims. The parties and the Court will use these designations
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these
counts does not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Moore and Williams for delaying or denying access
to medical care for Black's injured hand;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants Moore and Williams for
inadequate psychiatric care,
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment due process
claim for solitary confinement of more than a year.
shall be allowed to proceed beyond screening, however, Counts
2 and 3 shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
initial matter, Black is a pretrial detainee, so he is not
yet eligible to bring claims under the Eighth Amendment.
However, the Seventh Circuit has found that claims by
pretrial detainees may be assessed under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and that it is “convenient and entirely
appropriate to apply the same standard to claims arising
under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and the Eighth
Amendment (convicted prisoners) without
differentiation.” See Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citation ...