United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Deandre Bradley, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was subject to
excessive use of force, was denied due process, and had his
serious medical needs ignored or undertreated. He also
alleges he was denied access to protective custody due to his
use of a wheelchair, in violation of the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e, and the
United States Constitution. He seeks monetary damages and
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required 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, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, 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).
Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: He is a
paraplegic as a result of a stab wound that he previously
suffered. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 14). Due to his injuries, Plaintiff
cannot walk, must use a wheelchair, and suffers from pressure
19, 2019,  Plaintiff was scheduled to see the Parole
Review Board. Id., p. 3. Defendant Goetz came to his
cell to retrieve him, and an argument ensued about
Plaintiff's hair. Id. Goetz ordered Plaintiff
back in his cell, stating that he had refused his Parole
Review Board meeting. Id. After another exchange,
Goetz assaulted Plaintiff and called for backup.
Id., pp. 4-5. When Defendant Whithoft and several
other officers arrived, Plaintiff was on the ground and asked
for medical attention due to severe pain in his back.
Id., p. 5. Whithoft ordered Plaintiff thrown back
into his cell. Id. Plaintiff felt his back pop and
his pain intensified, so he again requested medical
attention. Id., pp. 5-6. He was taken to North 2
block's medical area, where the nurse said that because
there was no redness, he would have to wait to see the doctor
in a couple of days. Id., p. 6. Goetz later wrote a
disciplinary report accusing Plaintiff of grabbing his pen
and “using it in a stabbing motion” toward him.
Id., p. 13.
was apparently placed back in his cell and asked Whithoft to
speak with internal affairs and a crisis team-requests which
he denied. Id., p. 7. Whithoft then stated he was
going to “make sure you [Plaintiff] don't eat for a
while and suffer some other way[, ]” and ordered that
the food port should not be opened for any reason, including
giving food or medications. Id. According to his
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff has been
denied food and medication since at least June
(Doc. 2, p. 15). In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he
was not fed or given prescribed pain and psychotropic
medications for three days after the incident (June 19-21).
(Doc. 1, p. 12). He alleges that Defendants Chitty, Jane Doe
#1, and Otjen refused to provide him with his medications
during this time, and that correctional officer John Doe #2
prevented him from getting prescribed medication on at least
one occasion. Id., pp. 12-13.
his isolation, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Cannon, a
mental health worker who was doing rounds. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff informed her he was having thoughts of self-harm,
but Cannon refused to put him on crisis watch. Id.
He then proceeded to intentionally cut himself. Id.
was placed on Elevated Security Risk (“ESR”)
status by Whithoft after the incident with Goetz.
Id., p. 8. Plaintiff was not given a hearing or
opportunity to contest being placed on ESR status. As a
result of his ESR status, unidentified officers have told
Plaintiff that he cannot have his “indigent bag”
of hygiene items; he was told he had to purchase them through
the commissary. Id. He also was denied access to the
prison yard. Id.
requested to be placed in protective custody
(“PC”), which was denied by Whithoft because
there is no PC accommodation for prisoners in wheelchairs.
Id., p. 9. Plaintiff alleges that he needs PC
because it is “not out of the ordinary for security
staff to retaliate against prisoners who have allegedly
caused harm to a fellow officer[.]” Id., p.
11. Plaintiff is currently being held in the ADA Wing, where
he is the only segregated inmate. Id., p. 12.
was seen by Defendant Dr. Siddiqui, who he informed about the
pain, neurological issues, and an inability to sit upright on
his own. Id., pp. 14-15. Siddiqui stated the only
course of treatment he could provide was an x-ray and refused
to send him to an outside hospital for care or call for
collegial review. Id., pp. 14-15. An x-ray was
performed, which showed that Plaintiff had arthritis in his
neck. Id., pp. 15-16. Siddiqui informed him that he
would have to live with it because there was no cure.
Id., p. 16.
also complained to Siddiqui about his wheelchair, which had
broken in December 2018 and was replaced with a large, heavy
model that he cannot move himself. Id., pp. 16, 18,
20. Siddiqui claimed this was an issue for the ADA
coordinator and a physical therapist. Id., pp.
16-17. Plaintiff then met with physical therapist John Doe
#1, who told him he could not do anything about the
wheelchair because it was a matter for the ADA staff and the
doctor and because he was in segregation. Id., p.
17. Plaintiff blames Wexford, Menard's contracted
healthcare provider, for failing to “employ a certified
individual” who can “properly fit and
prescribe” adequate wheelchairs. Id., pp.
22-23. Plaintiff also complains that the facility (possibly
through Defendant Skidmore) is refusing to replace the
specialized cushion he needs to prevent pressure sores.
Id., p. 21.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following twelve counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim for use of excessive force
against Goetz in connection with the June 19, 2019 incident.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Goetz
for denying him access to the Parole Review Board meeting and
writing a false disciplinary report in connection with the
June 19, 2019 incident.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need claim against Whithoft in connection
with placing Plaintiff back in his cell after the June 19,
Count 4: Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment and
deliberate indifference claims against Whithoft for ordering
that Plaintiff not be fed or given medication.
Count 5: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Whithoft for denying Plaintiff protective custody.
Count 6: Fourteenth Amendment denial of due process claim
against Whithoft, Lawrence, and Jeffreys for Plaintiff's
placement on ESR status.
Count 7: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Cannon for failing to respond to Plaintiff's
indication that he would harm himself.
Count 8: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Chitty, Otjen, Jane Doe #1, and John Doe #2 for
failing to administer Plaintiff's needed medications.
Count 9: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Siddiqui for failing send Plaintiff to an outside
Count 10: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Wexford, John Doe #1, and Skidmore related to his
wheelchair and seat cushion issues.
Count 11: ADA and/or RA claim against Lawrence and Jeffreys
for failing to provide access to PC for inmates in a
Count 12: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
for being denied yard privileges and indigent bag hygiene
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order
should be considered dismissed ...