Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Barrows v. Goldman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 2, 2019

HENRY BARROWS, #B82577, Plaintiff,
v.
LISA GOLDMAN, LT. BEBOUT, C/O QUANT, C/O DUBZINSKI, LT. WITHOFF, MRS. WALTON, MS. MALL, CASSIE NORTEN, and TONYA SMITH, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Nancy J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Henry Barrows, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff claims that Menard officials responded to his suicide attempts with deliberate indifference, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-5). He seeks money damages from the defendants. (Id.).

         The Complaint is subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, meritless, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-5): Prison officials failed to prevent Plaintiff from repeatedly attempting suicide at Menard. Plaintiff describes five suicide attempts in March 2018.

         On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff asked an officer for a crisis team because he felt “self-injurious.” (Id. at p. 2). The officer told Plaintiff to kill himself. Plaintiff responded by repeatedly cutting his left forearm until it bled. Nurse Smith bandaged Plaintiff's wounds but instructed officers to return Plaintiff to his cell. Nurse Smith informed the officers that Doctor Goldman declined to place Plaintiff on suicide watch, even after she informed the doctor that Plaintiff would attempt suicide again. (Id.).

         Soon thereafter, Plaintiff cut himself until he severed an artery and suffered significant blood loss. (Id. at p. 2). Lieutenant BeBout and Nurse Walton attempted to revive Plaintiff by slapping him, kicking him, and stomping on his new shoes while screaming insults at him. Plaintiff was treated for blood loss at Chester Memorial Hospital but returned to the same cell. (Id.).

         On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff asked Officer Quant to summon a crisis team, and the officer refused. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff cut himself around 1:45 p.m., and Officer Quant waited until 2:30 p.m. to summon help. (Id.).

         On March 27, 2018, Officer Dubzinski encouraged Plaintiff to cut himself, and Plaintiff did just that. (Id. at p. 3). Nurse Norton bandaged his arm and placed him back in the same cell. Officer Doe then blocked the surveillance camera with a trash can and placed a mop over the blood that pooled on Plaintiff's cell floor. (Id.).

         On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff attempted suicide again, after Nurse Walton ignored his requests for crisis intervention. Lieutenant Withoff revived Plaintiff by repeatedly slapping him while laughing. Nurse Mall stood watching, laughing, and encouraging Withoff. (Id.).

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate a single Count in this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants for responding to Plaintiff's risk of suicide and suicide attempts with deliberate indifference in March 2018.

         Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considereddismissed without prejudice ...


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.