United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MACEO G. WILLIS, JR., Plaintiff,
JAMES T. DIMAS, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility
(“TDF”) is requesting leave to proceed under a
reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are
institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
“privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651
(7th Circ. 1972). Additionally, a court must
dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at
any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has
been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this
court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only
if the complaint states a federal action.
reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court
has reviewed the complaint and has also held a merit review
hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally
explain his claims to the court.
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that TDF officials have subjected him and other
residents to unconstitutionally punitive conditions. For
example, plaintiff alleges that TDF officials require inmates
to wear black box handcuffs, forced him to share a room with
sexually violent individuals, subjected him to intrusive cell
searches and constant surveillance through intercom systems,
and pressured him to admit to crimes for which he has not
been charged. Plaintiff also alleges that TDF officials have
failed to provide him with adequate mental health treatment,
and that TDF officials apply the rules differently based on
civil detainee, plaintiff's constitutional rights are
derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See, e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015); Budd v.
Motley 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, the Seventh Circuit has “found it convenient
and entirely appropriate to apply the same standard to claims
arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and Eighth
Amendment (convicted prisoners) ‘without
differentiation.'” Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) quoting
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2
(7th Cir. 1999).
states a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the alleged failure
to provide adequate mental health treatment. Hughes v.
Farris, 837 F.3d 807, 808 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff
also states an equal protection claim for his allegations
that the rules are applied to residents different based upon
race. Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564
does not state a claim for the alleged punitive restrictions.
Civil detainees may be housed in prison-like conditions
without violating the Constitution. Allison v.
Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2003). Also, plaintiff
has no Fifth Amendment right to avoid confessing to uncharged
crimes as participation in treatment in Illinois is
Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court finds that the plaintiff states a
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious mental health need and an Equal
Protection claim against the named defendants. Any additional
claims shall not be included in the case, except at the
Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause
shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions.
Motions filed before defendants' counsel has filed an
appearance will generally be denied as premature. The
plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this
time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
Court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days
from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may
file a motion requesting the status of service. After the
defendants have been served, the Court will enter an order
setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said
defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be
used only for effectuating service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date
the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not
an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate
under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In
general, an answer sets forth the defendants' positions.
The Court does not rule on the merits of those positions