United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
STANLEY E. RECTOR, Jr., Plaintiff,
DOUGLAS CLARK, and MARSHA LILY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Stanley Rector, Jr., a detainee at Jackson County Jail,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights at Perry County
Jail (“Jail”) in 2019. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff claims that Major Clark and Lieutenant Lily forced
him to sleep on the floor next to a toilet and denied him
medical care when he became ill. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-10). He seeks
monetary relief against the defendants. (Id. at p.
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to
screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the
Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an
immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations are
liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
makes the following allegations in his Complaint: During
Plaintiff's detention at the Jail in May and June 2019,
Major Clark and Lieutenant Lily subjected him to inhumane
conditions of confinement. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-10). At various
times, they forced him to sleep on the floor near the toilet
and denied his requests for a sleeping “boat.”
(Id. at p. 10). Plaintiff became sick. (Id.
at pp. 8-9). During a two-day period in May, he had eighteen
bowel movements and did not urinate. When he reported these
symptoms to staff, Major Clark and Lieutenant Lily had
Officer Ben “play doctor” by filling out
paperwork with Plaintiff. An hour later, Officer Alise
brought Plaintiff five pills pursuant to the Jail
doctor's phone orders. Plaintiff refused to take
them because Officer Alise was not a medical professional,
could not identify the pills, did not know the side effects,
and would not produce the pill bottle. Plaintiff's family
ultimately intervened on his behalf and demanded medical
care. He was transported to Pinckneyville Hospital, where he
was treated in the urgent care unit for food poisoning,
malnutrition, and dehydration. (Id.).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following enumerated Counts:
Count 1: Defendants subjected Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement by forcing him to
sleep on the floor near the toilet and denying him a
“boat” at the Jail and May/June 2019.
Count 2: Defendants denied Plaintiff
adequate medical care at the Jail for food poisoning and
related symptoms in May 2019.
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed herein is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under
Fourteenth Amendment governs claims of unconstitutional
living conditions and inadequate medical care brought by
pretrial detainees, and the Eighth Amendment governs the same
claims of convicted persons. See Hardeman v. Curran,
933 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2019); Miranda v. Cty. Of
Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018); McCann v.
Ogle Cty., Ill., 909 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2018) (defining
current and evolving standards applicable to these claims).
At this stage, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was a pretrial
detainee or convicted prisoner when his claims arose.
However, the applicable legal standard can be determined as
this case proceeds. Counts 1 and 2 survive preliminary review
under both standards, based on Plaintiff's allegations of
prolonged exposure to unsanitary conditions and inadequate
medical treatment at the direction or consent of the
defendants. Counts 1 and 2 shall receive further review.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is
DENIED without prejudice. See Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (articulating
factors district court should consider when presented with a
request for counsel). Plaintiff describes his mother's
telephone contacts with attorneys, but he offers few details
about the number of contacts, the names of the attorneys, the
dates of contact, and their exact responses to her request
for representation of Plaintiff. (Doc. 3, p. 1). Plaintiff
has not yet demonstrated reasonable efforts to locate
counsel. Moreover, Plaintiff appears competent to represent
himself in this matter. He prepared a Complaint that survives
screening. He demonstrates knowledge of key events,
defendants, and witnesses. Other than his limited education,
Plaintiff identifies no other impediments to pro se
litigation, such as language, education, medical, or mental
health barriers. The Court declines to recruit counsel at