United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Julian Bonner, who is committed at Big Muddy River
Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”) as a
“sexually dangerous person” (“SDP”),
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as denial
of accommodations in violation of the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation
Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794–94e.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Persons like
Plaintiff who are civilly committed under the Sexually
Dangerous Persons Act (725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 205/0.01 et
seq.) in Illinois are subject to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 et
setq.). Kalinowski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 978,
978-79 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Complaint shall be
screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff was
placed in the SDP Program in 2002. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He is
currently diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder and a
personality disorder, and was “historically”
diagnosed with learning and speech disorders. (Id.,
states that his literacy and learning disabilities have not
been addressed by staff and that he “has never been
offered individualized treatment to assist him to effectively
learn treatment concepts.” (Id., p. 9).
Additionally, he alleges that the entire SDP program is
deficient and is not calculated to actually treat any of its
participants, but is instead simply a prison term by another
name-there is no established curriculum, progress is judged
solely by the subjective judgment of staff, and staff persist
with ineffective treatment to the extent of failing to use
any professional judgment. (Id., pp. 9-11).
alleges that Defendant Stover, the lead therapist in the SDP
program, is abusive and “refused to return personal
property of the Plaintiff.” (Id., pp. 5-6).
He alleges that Defendant Hahs, a Correctional Counselor at
Big Muddy, has constructively denied him access to the
administrative grievance procedure by failing to respond to
them, and that Stover retaliates against participants who use
the grievance process in their semi-annual evaluations.
(Id.. pp. 6-7, 12). Plaintiff also asserts that
Defendant Baldwin, as his court-appointed legal guardian, has
failed to acquit his duties in that role. (Id., pp.
clarity, the Court has divided the complaint into five
distinct claims as follows:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to adequately
treat his paraphilia and related disorders;
Count 2: ADA and RA claim against Baldwin for failure to
accommodate Plaintiff’s learning and intellectual
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Stover for
failing to return personal property;
Count 4: First Amendment claim against Stover and Hahs for
preventing access to the grievance system and retaliating
against Plaintiff ...