United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ESMOND L. SANFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON COUNTY JAIL, DONALD BUNT, GARY BOST, ROBERT HERTZ, SHERIFF JOHN D. LAKIN, MAYNARD HILL, ROBERT HOLLENBECK, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J.
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 116) of
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams recommending that the
Court grant in part and deny in part the defendant's
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 82). All parties have
objected to the Report (Docs. 122, 123 & 124) and have
responded to their adversaries' objections (Docs. 125,
126, 128 & 130).
I.
Report Review Standard
The
Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a
report and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court
must review de novo the portions of the report to
which objections are made. Id. “If no
objection or only partial objection is made, the district
court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
II.
Background
Sanford
filed this lawsuit because of events and conditions that
occurred while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Madison
County Jail from August 2, 2013, to August 13, 2014.
Remaining in this case are:
Count I: a claim against defendants Bost, Bunt and Hertz (in
his individual and official capacities) for unconstitutional
conditions of confinement due to an unhealthy diet;
Count II: a claim against defendants Bost, Bunt, Hill and
Hertz in their individual capacities for unconstitutional
conditions of confinement due to cold showers in a cold
facility;
Count III: a claim against defendants Bost, Bunt, Hill,
Hollenbeck and Hertz (in his individual and official
capacities) for unconstitutional conditions of confinement
due to lack of exercise;
Count IV: a claim against defendant Hertz in his official
capacity for unconstitutional conditions of confinement due
to routinely cold cells; and
Count V: a claim against defendants Bost, Bunt and Hertz in
their individual capacities for deliberate indifference to
medical safety due to Hepatitis-C exposure.
Defendant
Madison County remains a party solely to fund any judgment
against the Sheriff of Madison County in his official
capacity. The Court further notes that Hertz is no longer the
Sheriff of Madison County. See
http://www.co.madison.il.us/departments/sheriff/ (visited
Feb. 28, 2017). Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24(d), the Court substitutes the new Sheriff,
John D. Lakin, as defendant in Sanford's official
capacity claims.
III.
Report and Objections
As a
preliminary matter, the Court has reviewed the legal
standards Magistrate Judge Williams sets forth in the Report
and finds them to be correct and not in need of repetition in
this order.
A.
Count I: Jail Diet
Magistrate
Judge Williams recommended the Court grant summary judgment
for defendants Bost, Bunt, Hertz and Lakin on Count I. In
this count, Sanford claims that the jail served him foods
high in salt and sugar, which contributed to his high blood
pressure and weight gain, and that Bost and Bunt ignored his
requests for a different diet. Instead, the healthcare unit
gave him blood pressure medicine on and off as needed.
Magistrate
Judge Williams found no evidence that the jail's diet
posed an objectively serious harm to Sanford, who had been
diagnosed with high blood pressure long before he arrived at
the jail, although he was not taking blood pressure medicine
at the time of his arrival. He was given medication within
days of his arrival when his high blood pressure was
detected, medical staff monitored his blood pressure
throughout his detention, and the blood pressure medication
was discontinued when his blood pressure reached the normal
range in May 2014 and then reinstated when it was found to be
high again in July 2014.
Magistrate
Judge Williams also found no evidence that Bost or Bunt,
non-medical jail employees, were deliberately indifferent to
Sanford's blood pressure needs where his blood pressure
was being monitored and treated by healthcare unit personnel,
who did not request a special diet for Sanford.
Magistrate
Judge Williams further found there was no evidence Hertz was
personally involved in or had personal knowledge of the
actions of his subordinate with respect to Sanford's
blood pressure or his diet. In other words, there was no
evidence Hertz actually knew of and disregarded Sanford's
dietary complaints. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Williams
found there could be no official capacity liability absent an
underlying constitutional violation.
1.
Bost and Bunt
Sanford
objects to the finding that the jail's diet did not pose
an objectively serious risk to Sanford's health. He
points to the sodium, fat and sugar content of the breakfast
provided every day during his detention, which he claims is
high. He also points to the fact that he was not on blood
pressure medication and was not experiencing problems
associated with high blood pressure when he arrived at the
jail in support of his argument that his need for medication
arose during his detention. He also points to his gaining
nearly 40 pounds in the first month of his detention, which
he believes should have alerted Bost and Bunt that there was
a problem with his diet, and the beginning of symptoms
(headaches, dizziness and an irregular heartbeat) associated
with high blood pressure.
Sanford
also objects to the finding that no evidence shows Bost and
Bunt were deliberately indifferent to the harm the jail diet
posed to Sanford. He points to his unanswered complaints to
Bost and Bunt about the impact of the jail meals on his
health and the lack of any evidence that Bost or Bunt
actually knew Sanford was being treated by jail's medical
staff or investigated his complaints with that staff.
Having
conducted a de novo review of the matter, the Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Williams. It is true that the
evidence shows that the jail's diet may contain a fair
amount of salt and sugar and that Sanford believed the diet
was harming his blood pressure and causing adverse symptoms.
However, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury
could determine the salt and sugar content caused or
exacerbated his pre-existing high blood pressure or caused
symptoms. Sanford showed up at the jail with high blood
pressure (although he was not treating it at the time), was
given medication to control it, and was monitored throughout
his detention. Under such medical care, no reasonable jury
could find the diet served to Sanford at the jail posed an
objectively serious risk to his health.
This is
especially true considering the nature of high blood pressure
as noted by medical authorities, as the Court was encouraged
to consider in Jackson v. Pollion, 733 F.3d 786, 789
(7th Cir. 2013). Information from the Mayo Clinic suggests
Sanford's speculation about the symptoms caused by his
high blood pressure is unfounded:
Most people with high blood pressure have no signs or
symptoms, even if blood pressure readings reach dangerously
high levels.
A few people with high blood pressure may have headaches,
shortness of breath or nosebleeds, but these signs and
symptoms aren't specific and usually don't occur
until high blood pressure has reached a severe or
life-threatening stage.
Mayo
Clinic, High blood pressure (hypertension), Symptoms,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/
diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/basics/symptoms/con-20019580
(visited Feb. 28, 2017). Here, Sanford testified that he
controlled his blood pressure by diet and exercise before he
was detained, and when he was detained, his blood pressure
was only marginally high. The upper limit of normal blood
pressure is 139/89, see Mayo Clinic, High blood
pressure (hypertension), Tests and diagnosis,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/
high-blood-pressure/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20019580
(visited Feb. 28, 2017); see also Jackson,
733 F.3d at 788 (“‘Ideal'” blood
pressure is considered to be below 120/80, but the top of the
normal range is 140/90.”). Sanford's readings in
his first week at the prison were 158/100, 138/100 and
137/88, and his blood pressure was controlled through
medication as needed thereafter for the approximately one
year he was detained. He was clearly not at a “severe
or life-threatening stage” where symptoms were likely
to emerge. No reasonable jury could find based on these facts
that Sanford's diet caused him headaches, dizziness and
an irregular heartbeat or, indeed, any serious impact on his
health long-term.
Additionally,
no reasonable jury could find based on the evidence in the
file that Sanford's approximate 40-pound weight gain in
one month was attributable to the diet served by the jail. In
fact, it is virtually impossible for that to have occurred.
The evidence shows the jail's diet complied with the
Illinois County Jail Standards, 20 Ill. Admin. Code §
701.110(a)(1), which required a minimum of 1800 to 2000
calories per day for an adult. Sample menus show the daily
diet at the jail contained between 2, 000 and 3, 000
calories. The Mayo Clinic teaches that “3, 500 calories
equals about 1 pound.” Mayo Clinic, Weight loss,
Counting calories: Get back to weight-loss basics,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/
calories/art-20048065 (visited Feb. 28, 2017). Thus, for
Sanford to have gained 40 pounds, he would have had to have
consumed 140, 000 calories more than the energy he expended.
For him to have done so in one month, he would have had to
have consumed 4, 666 calories a day over the energy he
expended. Considering he expended at least 2, 300 calories
per day just existing and eating[1], he would have had to have
consumed approximately 6, 966 calories a day to have gained
40 pounds in a month. In light of the evidence of what was
actually served at meals, no reasonable jury could believe
the jail actually fed Sanford more than three times the
mandated number of calories.[2] Sanford is patently incredible
when he claims to have gained 40 pounds in one month because
of jail meals, and it is completely unfounded to connect any
weight gain to Sanford's blood pressure.
Finally,
as the Seventh Circuit realized in Jackson, unless
extremely high, mild high blood pressure generally causes
harm over a long period of time. Jackson, 733 F.3d
at 789 (quoting 2 Dan J. Tennenhouse, Attorneys Medical
Deskbook § 24:4 (4th ed. 2012) (“The
prolonged elevation of either the systolic or the
diastolic blood pressure causes damage. If mildly
elevated over a long period of time, or if
highly elevated over a short period of
time, damage results to a variety of different
‘target' organs in the body, primarily due to
arterial injury.” (emphasis added)). No evidence
suggests the diet Sanford received for the approximately
one-year period while detained in the jail, while
simultaneously being treated ...