United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds pro se from his detention in the Rushville Treatment
and Detention Center. He claims that Defendants placed him at
risk of a sexual assault or harassment through rooming
placements, refused to move him when he reported he was being
sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by roommates, and
then retaliated against him for reporting that assault and
are eighteen defendants, falling into two camps: the Illinois
Department of Human Services employees (DHS defendants) and
the Liberty Healthcare employees (Liberty Defendants). Only
the Liberty Defendants have moved for summary judgment, the
motion now before the Court. The Court directed the DHS
Defendants to file a summary judgment motion or to identify
the material factual disputes, but the DHS Defendants
responded that the record is not developed enough to do so
reviewing the parties' submissions on summary judgment,
the Court concludes disputed material facts exist which
preclude summary judgment for the Liberty Defendants.
court shall grant summary judgment 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."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “In a § 1983 case, the
plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the constitutional
deprivation that underlies the claim, and thus must come
forward with sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of
material fact to avoid summary judgment.”
McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir.
2010). At the summary judgment stage, the evidence is viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, with material
factual disputes resolved in the nonmovant's favor.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when a
reasonable juror could find for the nonmovant. Id.
facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Plaintiff
for purposes of this order only.
has been detained at the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act
for over seven years, since May 2009. To be civilly committed
under this Act, a jury or judge must find beyond a reasonable
doubt that an individual is a “sexually violent
person”-a person who “has been convicted of a
sexually violent offense, has been adjudicated delinquent for
a sexually violent offense, or has been found not guilty of a
sexually violent offense by reason of insanity and who is
dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder
that makes it substantially probable that the person will
engage in acts of sexual violence.” 725 ILCS
207/35(d)(1); 725 ILCS 207/5(f).
clinical treatment team during the relevant time included
Defendant Ganz, Louck, and Shroeder. Defendant Ganz was
Plaintiff's primary therapist; Defendant Louck was the
team leader of Plaintiff's treatment team; and Defendant
Shroeder was a clinical therapist on Plaintiff's
treatment team. Defendant Jumper is the Clinical Director,
overseeing the clinical treatment and rehabilitation
programs. These four defendants are employed by Liberty
Healthcare Corporation (Liberty Defendants) and are the only
defendants who filed a summary judgment motion.
2010, Plaintiff was roomed with resident Eric Smith, who made
sexual advances to Plaintiff at night while both of them were
locked in the room, including “rubbing
[Plaintiff's] legs, propositioning [Plaintiff] for oral
sex, grabbing [Plaintiff's] butt, and . . . continu[ing]
to play with [Plaintiff's] feet when they were hanging
off the top bunk . . . .” (Pl.'s Dep. p. 17.)
Plaintiff reported the problem to the clinical staff and to
security and was removed from the situation about one and
½ weeks later. (Pl.'s Dep. p. 20.)
in 2011 or the early part of 2012, Plaintiff was roomed with
resident Lawrence Hayes. According to Plaintiff, Hayes
“manipulated and forced [Plaintiff] into sexual contact
with him- which was anal-anal sex and oral sex.”
(Pl.'s Dep. p. 74.) Hayes manipulated Plaintiff with
“trickery type comments like, ‘I won't hurt
you. I'll go easy on you.'” Id.
Plaintiff asked Defendants Hankins for a new room assignment
but did not report the assault to Hankins at this time
because Plaintiff was scared. (Pl.'s Dep. p. 73- 74.)
Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the assault until after
Plaintiff was moved to a different room. Several weeks after
he was moved out of the room, Plaintiff discussed the assault
with his clinical team, which included Defendant Ganz.
(Pl.'s Dep. p. 72.) Plaintiff was advised to talk about
the incident in group therapy. Id.
2014, Plaintiff was once again roomed with resident Eric
Smith for a few weeks, and Smith again started making verbal
sexual advances. (Pl.'s Dep. pp. 21, 28, 31.) Plaintiff
complained to Defendant Hankins, who did not move Plaintiff,
and also to Defendant Ganz, who took no action. Plaintiff
then filed a grievance claiming Smith as an enemy and was
moved out of the room. (Pl.'s Dep. pp. 21-23, 32, 33.) By
this time, resident Smith had also requested a room change,
accusing Plaintiff of threatening him. (Pl.'s Dep. pp.
Fall of 2014, Plaintiff requested to room with resident David
Mackel. Plaintiff knew that Mackel was sexually active, but
Plaintiff and had Mackel agreed that, as a condition of
rooming together, Mackel would not attempt to engage in any
sexual activities with Plaintiff. Plaintiff believed
Mackel's promise because Mackel was involved in a
relationship with another resident at the time. (Pl.'s
Dep. pp. 23-24, 94.) Unfortunately, Mackel did not keep his
promise. Mackel repeatedly masturbated at night in front of
Plaintiff, pressured Plaintiff for oral and anal sex, and
once reached down Plaintiff's pants and grabbed
reported resident Mackel's behavior to staff but no
action was taken. One day, Plaintiff had his room window
covered during the day in order to sleep, and Defendant
Morton commented loudly in front of everyone that Plaintiff
would not need to sleep during the day “if [Plaintiff]
wasn't up all night sucking dick.” (Pl.'s Dep.
continued to report resident Mackel's behavior to staff
and his clinical treatment team, including Defendants
Dougherty, Hankins, Kindhart, Culhan, Morton, Teel, Thomas,
Louck, Ganz, and Shroeder, but Plaintiff was not moved from
the room. (Pl.'s Dep. pp. 2, 11, 12, 14, 29, 35, 91.)
Defendant Ganz told Plaintiff to talk about the incident in
group therapy. (Pl.'s Dep. p. 80.) Defendant Louck filled
out an incident report regarding Plaintiff's allegations
and sent an email to Defendant Jumper. (Louck Aff. para.
6.)Louck avers that the ...