United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
HUBERT D. HILL, Plaintiff,
JOHN LAKIN, KAREN DEEM, and HUGHES LOCHARD, M.D., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, United States District Judge.
Hubert Hill filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for inadequate medical care in violation of his
constitutional rights while at Madison County Jail. Following
an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a claim
of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
regarding the treatment of a foot injury in violation of the
Eighth Amendment against Defendants Deem and Lochard in their
individual capacities and Defendant Lakin in his official
capacity (Count 1). (Doc. 6, p. 6).
September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 25), asking
the Court to order that Plaintiff be examined by an
orthopedic specialist and provided appropriate treatment for
his foot pain. (Doc. 25, p. 1). The Court denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, but
directed Defendants to respond to his request for a
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 26). Defendants filed a
response (Doc. 28), Plaintiff filed a Reply Brief to the
Response (Doc. 30), and a hearing is currently scheduled for
October 31, 2019. (Doc. 31). Defendants notified the Court on
October 24, 2019, that Plaintiff had been transferred from
Madison County Jail and is now in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections. (Doc. 34, 2). Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction is now before the Court,
along with his Motion to Clarify Standard of Review (Doc.
to Clarify Standard of Review
time that Plaintiff filed his Complaint, it was unclear to
the Court whether he was a pretrial detainee or convicted
prisoner during his detention at the Madison County Jail.
Regardless, the Court found that the Complaint survived
screening even under the more stringent Eighth Amendment
standard. (Doc. 6, p. 4). Since then, Plaintiff has filed a
motion asking the Court to rule on the proper standard of
review for his constitutional violation claim. (Doc. 21). In
the motion, he claims that he was not convicted until August
21, 2019,  and so until this point, he has been a
pretrial detainee while at the Madison County Jail.
(Id. at pp. 1-2). Furthermore, in Defendants'
Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, they state that Plaintiff was “a pretrial
detainee at the time the relevant events took place”.
(Doc. 28, p. 6). As both parties agree that Plaintiff was a
pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged constitutional
violations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's
Motion (Doc. 21). His medical claim against Lakin, Deem, and
Dr. Lochard shall proceed under the Fourteenth Amendment,
which governs claims for inadequate medical care provided to
pretrial detainees. See Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d
936, 942 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Miranda v. Cty.
Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 351 (7th Cir. 2018)).
for Preliminary Injunction
prisoner who seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific
to a particular prison is transferred out of that prison, the
need for relief, and hence the prisoner's claim, become
moot. See Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th
Cir. 1996); Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 848
n.3 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding transfer from Cook County Jail
to state prison system mooted plaintiff's claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief against jail-specific
practice); Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th
Cir. 2008). Only if Plaintiff can show a realistic
possibility that he would again be incarcerated again at
Madison County Jail under the conditions described in the
Complaint, would it be proper for the Court to consider
injunctive relief. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709,
716 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Ortiz v. Downey, 561
F.3d 664, 6687 (7th Cir. 2009)).
Plaintiff was asking the Court to order Defendants to provide
an “appropriate course of medical treatment”,
which included arranging him to see an orthopedic specialist.
(Doc. 25, p. 1). According to the Status Report, Plaintiff is
no longer in the custody of Madison County Jail and so not
only can Defendants not arrange his appearance at the
hearing, but are incapable of implementing any injunctive
relief that is requested. As such, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief as MOOT. This denial is
without prejudice, however, and Plaintiff may file a new
motion at any time it becomes necessary to do so upon his
return to the Madison County Jail.
IS ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify Standard of
Review (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 25) is DENIED without prejudice as
MOOT, and the hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on October
31, 2019, is CANCELED.
IS SO ORDERED.
 This conviction date is also supported
by publicly available records in his criminal case. See
State of Ill. v Hill, No. 2018-CF-002848 (Madison County
Circuit Court, August 21, 2019). The court records from
Hill's criminal proceeding are public records of which
this Court can take judicial notice. See Henson v. CSC
Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994);
Bova v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,446 F.Supp.2d 926, 930 n.2
(S.D. Ill. 2006) (a ...