United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
S. BRUCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court for merit review of the
Plaintiff's complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C.
§1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff's
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1)
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
a pro se prisoner, alleges Defendants Lieutenant Kent
Robinson, Sergeant Kyle Miller, Correctional Officer McCann,
and Correctional Officer Norman Cullmann violated his
constitutional rights at Pontiac Correctional Center.
Plaintiff claims the Defendants repeatedly refused to provide
him needed medical and mental health care.
says on December 30, 2018, he was on suicide watch when he
began to cut himself with “a piece of razor
blade.” (Comp., p. 10). Plaintiff began to cut himself
on his “inner elbow, ” hitting a vein, and losing
“a massive amount of blood.” (Comp., p. 10).
Plaintiff tried to yell for officers, but he was losing
consciousness. Other inmates then began to bang on their cell
doors to get help.
next thing Plaintiff remembers is seeing Officers Welsh,
Cullmann, and McCann passing out food trays. Officer Welsh
saw Plaintiff and called for the Sergeant. As he waited,
Plaintiff noticed he had defecated, urinated, and vomited on
himself. After an extended period of time, Defendant Miller
arrived and stated: “I don't have time for this
leave him where he is.” (Comp., p. 10). Plaintiff
claims officers put food in his cell “hatch” and
walked away. (Comp., p. 10).
claims an inmate in a neighboring cell covered his cell with
a blanket in order to attract attention and get help for the
Plaintiff. When the tactical team arrived, Plaintiff says
officers recorded everything and they were able to see
Plaintiff covered in blood.
Robinson, Miller, McCann, and Cullmann then returned to
Plaintiff's cell. Lieutenant Robinson asked Plaintiff if
he was done playing games and what he used to cut himself.
Plaintiff said he used a razor blade which was now inserted
in his arm. Officer McCann told Plaintiff if he would give
the officers the razor blade, they would then get medical
attention for Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff said he could not
dig the razor out of his arm, and the officers again walked
away from his cell.
says he continued to self-harm, and he used a second razor
blade to cut himself. Plaintiff does not clarify if this
occurred on December 30, 2018, or at some later point. The
only time frame specifically alleged in his complaint is
December 30, 2018. Nonetheless, Plaintiff says he was left in
his cell for days unable to clean the blood, vomit, feces,
says Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they
were deliberately indifferent to the risk Plaintiff would
kill himself, and they failed to allow Plaintiff to clean
himself up. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants violated his
rights pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134.
has adequately alleged the four Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately
indifferent to his serious mental health and medical
condition on December 30, 2018. Plaintiff's complaint
alleges: (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical
condition; and (2) the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a risk of serious harm from that condition.
Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012).
While Plaintiff has not identified a specific mental health
diagnosis, the Seventh Circuit has found that “the need
for a mental illness to be treated could certainly be
considered a serious medical need.” Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir.2001).
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th
Cir.2001); Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269 (7th
Cir.1983). In addition, acts of self-harm pose a
“serious” risk to an inmate's health and
safety. See Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 760
quoting Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 733
(7th Cir. 2001); see also Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 665 (7th Cir. 2012)
(“[P]rison officials have an obligation to intervene
when they know a prisoner suffers from self-destructive
has also alleged an Eighth Amendment violation based on his
living conditions. Plaintiff says he was left covered in
blood, vomit, feces, and urine for several days. During
discovery, Plaintiff will need to clarify the specific amount
of time he was left in his cell.
Plaintiff claims the Defendants also violated his rights
pursuant to the ADA, he has not clearly articulated a claim.
To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, “the
plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a
disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise
subjected to discrimination by such an entity, and that the
denial or discrimination was by reason of' his
disability.” Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586,
592 (7th Cir. 2015)(internal citations omitted).
has failed to identify his specific mental illness or
disability. In addition, Plaintiff cannot sue the individual
correctional officers pursuant to the ADA. See Jaros v.
Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th
Cir. 2012). More important, the essence of Plaintiff's
claims is not an allegation that Defendants intentionally
discriminated against him because of a disability. Plaintiff
is instead alleging he was not provided treatment for his
conditions, and “[s]uch a claim is not actionable under
the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.” Hahn v. Walsh,
915 F.Supp.2d 925, 956 (C.D.Ill. March 14, 2013); see
also Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir.1996)
(“[T]he [ADA] would not be violated by a prison's
simply failing to attend to the medical needs of its disabled
prisoners.”). Therefore, the Court will dismiss any
intended ADA claim.
has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. .
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel and the Court cannot require an attorney to accept
pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court can
do is ask for ...