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.

Ganaway v. Goldman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 16, 2019

TARIUS D. GANAWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
MS. GOLDMAN, C/O WINE, UNKNOWN PARTY, WARDEN, CO/ CAREAWAY, and C/O DAVIS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Tarius Ganaway, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred while at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference and unconstitutional conditions of confinement resulting from two incidents where he attempted suicide and self-harm. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

         Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review 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). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriquez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges the following:[1] While at Menard, following attempts to mutilate and kill himself, Plaintiff was placed on crisis watch. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Despite telling mental health professional Goldman on multiple occasions that he was still suicidal, on August 15, 2018, Goldman told Corrections Officer Careaway that she was removing Plaintiff from crisis watch. Careaway took Plaintiff off crisis watch and then gave him a food tray with all of the utensils, which is typically given to an inmate not on crisis watch. Plaintiff used the utensils to cut himself, losing large amounts of blood. Id. at pp. 9, 12.

         A few days later, on or around August 18, 2018, while in a crisis cell, Plaintiff alerted Gallery Officer Wine and Corrections Officer Davis that he wanted to kill himself, and they ignored him. Id. at p. 12. Plaintiff covered the window to his cell with a blanket and began to cut himself. At some point, corrections officers asked him to remove the blanket. He refused and told them he was trying to kill himself. The officers then tried to remove the blanket. After a physical struggle with Plaintiff, Officer Wine saw that he was bleeding, but allowed him to replace the blanket. Plaintiff continued cutting himself. Id. Hours later, Plaintiff received medical attention and then was stripped and placed naked in a dirty cell. For five days he did not have a bed, blanket, water, or a working toilet. Id. at p. 7. He also was not allowed to shower for twenty days. Id. at 12.

         Preliminary Matters

         As an initial matter, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief must be dismissed. (See Doc. 1, p. 10). First, to the extent he is requesting injunctive relief regarding the treatment received at Menard, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1, p. 1) indicates that he is now incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, and thus his need for relief from the alleged unconstitutional treatment at Menard is moot. See Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004). Second, to the extent he is requesting injunctive relief against IDOC-that IDOC stop providing inmates poor mental health services- IDOC is not listed in the case caption as a defendant. Any claims against IDOC are dismissed without prejudice, because the Court will not treat parties not listed in the caption as defendants. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005). For these reasons, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice.

         Discussion

          Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the claims in this case into the following three Counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Goldman and Careaway for failure to protect and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's risk of self-harm and suicide on August 15, 2018.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Wine, Davis, and Unknown Party (“Unknown Lieutenant”) for failure to protect and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's risk of self-harm and suicide on or around August 18, 2018.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Goldman, Warden of Menard, and the Orange Crush Supervisor for cruel and unusual conditions of confinement following his suicide attempt on or around August 18, 2018.

         The 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 claim that is mentioned in theComplaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without ...


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.