Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henderson v. Illinois Department of Corrections

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 29, 2018

DARRYL HENDERSON, #M29516 Plaintiff,



         Plaintiff Darryl Henderson filed a three-count First Amended Complaint, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendant corrections officers LaTosha Charles and Morgan Hudson, and failure to accommodate his disability in violation of the Americans with Disability Act, 29 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Defendants, Charles, Hudson, and IDOC, move to dismiss [47] the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein the motion is denied.


         The Court accepts the following facts as true for purposes of this motion. Darryl Henderson, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, suffered a gunshot wound on April 12, 2016, that injured his spine, causing severe neurological damage. As a result of his injuries, Henderson endures pain, has difficulty walking long distances and climbing stairs. The wound also caused serious complications to his urinary system and bowel control. Henderson uses a urinary catheter, which must be emptied every four hours to avoid causing him severe pain and discomfort.

         In August 2016, Henderson was transferred to the Northern Reception Center (“NRC”) unit of Stateville. The physician's assistant, defendant Mary D. Schwarz, met with Henderson the day of his arrival at NCR. She provided him with a “Special Needs Permit” indicating that Henderson was to be assigned to a lower bunk in a single cell on the first floor of the prison. It further provided that Henderson have crutches to assist him with walking. The “Special Needs Permit” also indicated that Henderson was required to use a catheter.

         Despite the “Special Needs Permit” Henderson alleges that he was initially placed in a cell with a roommate and then he was moved to a third floor cell. Henderson informed defendant Charles that he had been approved for a first floor cell and that his injuries made it difficult for him to use stairs. The move to the third floor forced Henderson to walk up and down two flights of stairs on a regular basis without any type of assistance. He was also not provided with crutches as directed by the “Special Needs Permit.” As a result he experienced severe back pain and cramping, foot pain, and uncomfortable numbness.

         Henderson requires a catheter to urinate, which must be sterilized to minimize the risk of infection. Henderson regularly requested that he be provided with iodine to sterilize his catheter and gloves to wear, but he was provided with neither nor any other means of sterilization. Henderson was also denied use of bathroom facilities while in the prison yard. His catheter needs to be emptied at least every four hours. Henderson was often required to spend eight hours outside in the prison yard, but with no suitable bathroom facilities where he could empty his catheter, he suffered significant pain and discomfort. Henderson informed Hudson that he needed to empty his catheter while in the prison yard, but he refused to take any action to provide Henderson with the necessary accommodations for his condition.

         Henderson's injuries also caused him the inability to control his bowels, which required him to wear diapers and use a disposable bed pad to maintain sanitary conditions in his cell. Despite requests and grievances, Henderson did not receive the supplies he needed and had unsanitary conditions in his cell and his physical condition worsened.

         In the first weeks at NCR, Henderson regularly spoke with Charles, the correctional officer assigned to his cell block. He explained to Charles the he suffered from serious neurological injuries that required regular medical treatment, and impacted his bodily functions. He informed Charles that he needed the use of a sterile catheter and the ability to empty it frequently. Henderson also explained to Charles why he needed a first floor cell and that climbing the stairs was difficult. He requested to be moved to a first floor cell as approved in his “Special Needs Permit, ” but Charles denied each request.

         According to the complaint, the continued denial of accommodations for his disability and deliberate indifference to his medical needs caused his condition to worsen and he experienced severe pain. Henderson makes a variety of allegations about his medical care and treatment that are not relevant to the instant motion.

         Legal Standard

         To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face and raising the right to relief above speculation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 62, 678 (2009). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Pisciota v. Old Nat. Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007).


         The IDOC defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety.[1]Defendants argue that Henderson fails to state a claim against Hudson and Charles for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because he has not alleged facts showing they had a duty to act. Defendants also argue that Henderson conflates his ADA and RA counts with a failure to his deliberate indifference claim or a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.