United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KENNADO K. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
KARIMI, Medical Director, ANGELA COWELL, LCSW, JANE DOE, Nurse, JOHN DOE 1, Staff II, JOHN DOE 2, STA 1 Staff, LORI DAMMERMANN, and DIRECTOR OF CHESTER MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kennado K. Taylor, an apparent pretrial detainee currently
housed at Chester Mental Health Center
(“Chester”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights and violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101
et seq. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief (Doc. 1).
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires
the Court 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 requests 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).
with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”)
(Doc. 2). Before screening the Complaint, the Court must
first address Plaintiff's eligibility for IFP status. 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a).
seeks permission to proceed without prepaying the full $400
filing fee for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Under
Section 1915, a federal court may permit a prisoner who is
indigent to bring a “suit, action or proceeding, civil
or criminal, ” without prepayment of fees upon
presentation of an affidavit stating the prisoner's
assets together with “the nature of the action . . .
and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to
redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Based on the
information presented in the IFP motion, it appears Plaintiff
is indigent (Doc. 2).
Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP under Section
1915(g), which prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil
action or appealing a civil judgment IFP, “if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Before
filing this action, Plaintiff had more than three cases
dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious,
or failed to state a claim. See Taylor v. Doe, et
al., No. 17-cv-2347 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 2, 2017);
Taylor v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-2348 (N.D. Ill.
dismissed June 2, 2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al., No.
17-cv-2349 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 5, 2017); Taylor v.
Doe, et al., No. 17-cv- 5537 (N.D. Ill. dismissed Sept.
22, 2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-6001
(N.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 22, 2017). Because Plaintiff has
“struck out” under Section 1915(g), he cannot
proceed IFP unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “[I]mminent
danger” within the meaning of § 1915(g) requires a
“real and proximate” threat of serious physical
injury to a prisoner. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d
328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan,
279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)).
claims he is not receiving treatment for his mental illnesses
and that his mental health is deteriorating which affects his
daily activities and his ability to function. He alleges he
is being given a medication that causes numerous serious
physical symptoms, worsening depression, and increased
thoughts of suicide. He further alleges the conditions at
Chester are so bad that he will kill himself. These
allegations sufficiently invoke the “imminent
danger” exception to the “three strikes”
rule. Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP Motion will be granted
and the initial partial filing fee and payment scheme will be
set forth in a separate order.
Court further notes that in the Complaint, Plaintiff
indicates he has filed previous lawsuits in federal court but
does not have copies of the dockets or the case numbers to
provide a list. However, although he is clearly aware, he
failed to advise the Court that he has received over three
strikes under Section 1915(g). In a previous civil case
Plaintiff filed in this Court this year, he not only
disclosed that he had three strikes, but the Court also
informed Plaintiff that he has had five strikes and provided
him a list of the cases. Taylor v. Dammerann, No.
19-cv-00497 (S.D. Ill. May 15, 2019) (Doc. 4-order dismissing
IFP motion). Plaintiff is therefore WARNED
that any future failure to disclose his litigation history or
provide the Court with misrepresentations or fraudulent
information, particularly when he seeks to proceed IFP, may
result in sanctions, including fines and immediate dismissal
of the suit. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543 (7th
Cir. 2011) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where
Court-issued complaint form clearly warned Plaintiff that
failure to provide litigation history would result in
dismissal); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725
(7th Cir. 2008) (termination of suit is an appropriate
sanction for struck-out prisoner who took advantage of
court's oversight and was granted leave to proceed IFP);
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999)
(litigant who sought and obtained leave to proceed IFP
without disclosing his three-strike status committed a fraud
upon the court).
makes the following allegations in his Complaint: Dr. Karimi
is aware that Plaintiff is allergic to Haloperidol but
continues to give him the medication. Dr. Karimi told
Plaintiff that if he does not take the fitness test and
return to county jail, he will continue to order the
medication. Plaintiff believes Dr. Karimi is trying to kill
him. Jane Doe Nurse gave Plaintiff the medication and put him
in a room with no video camera. The medication caused his
body to lock up, difficulty breathing, heart palpitations,
chest pain, choking sensations, facial swelling, a rash,
difficulty sleeping, loss of appetite, and stomach pain. He
also had confusion, panic attacks, worsening depression, and
increased thoughts of suicide.
is abuse and neglect at Chester. Dr. Karimi told Plaintiff he
will place him somewhere that he will be killed. He is not
receiving treatment for his mental illnesses and his mental
health is deteriorating which affects his daily activities
and his ability to function. Jane Doe Nurse denied him
medical treatment. Staff and Jane Doe will cover it up when
Dr. Karimi kills him. Dr. Karimi, Cowell, and Dammermann are
retaliating against him. Plaintiff has informed Dr. Karimi,
Cowell, and Dammermann that he will kill himself if the
current circumstances continue. Plaintiff asks to be
transferred from Chester.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court designates the
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need claim against Dr. Karimi for giving
Plaintiff a medication that caused physical and mental harm.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need claim against Dr. Karimi, Cowell, Jane
Doe (Nurse), and Dammermann for disregarding Plaintiff's