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.

Taylor v. Koneman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 25, 2019

ALAN DESSO TAYLOR, II, #B89726, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN KONEMAN, MASSAC COUNTY, TED HOLDER, CHAD KAYLOR, and JOHN DOES 1-4, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court for preliminary review of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) filed by Plaintiff Alan Taylor, Jr., who is now represented by counsel in this matter. Plaintiff claims that he was denied mental health treatment and subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Massac County Detention Center. (Id. at pp. 2-5). He brings claims against Massac County and its officials under the Eighth Amendment and Illinois state law. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks money damages and mental health treatment.[1] (Id. at pp. 5-6).

         The First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or 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).

         First Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint: After he was taken into custody at Massac County Detention Center on February 28, 2019, Plaintiff notified Defendants that he suffered from a serious mental health condition.[2] (Doc. 20, pp. 3-5). Even so, Defendants failed to provide him with adequate mental health evaluations, treatment, or medications. (Id.). When Plaintiff later flooded his cell, Defendants placed him in a “turtle suit” and restrained him in a filthy chair and room for an undisclosed period of time. (Id. at pp. 4-5). Plaintiff claims that Defendants intended to cause him serious emotional distress. (Id.).

         Based on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following five counts in the First Amended Complaint:

Count 1: Denial of medical care claim against Defendants for failing to adequately evaluate and treat Plaintiff's serious mental health condition.
Count 2: Unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim against Defendants for placing Plaintiff in a filthy chair and/or room.
Count 3: Excessive force claim against Defendants for using a turtle suit to restrain Plaintiff after he flooded his cell.
Count 4: Retaliation claim against Defendants for improperly restraining Plaintiff and placing him in unsanitary conditions because he flooded his cell.
Count 5: Intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants under Illinois state law.

         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 other claim that is mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed herein should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         Discussion

         In order to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must set forth allegations suggesting that each defendant was personally involved in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Colbert v. City of Chi., 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010)). He must draw a causal connection between each defendant and the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Wolfe-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983)). It is not enough to make blanket allegations of misconduct against all defendants or list the elements of each cause of action without providing factual context for his claims. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The ...


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.