Childress v Hankins

1-8-2016 Illinois:

Plaintiff is civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. He alleges that he is a paraplegic, needing frequent daily catheterizations to empty his bladder, a wheelchair, a wheelchair-accessible room and toilet, grab bars by the toilet, and a shower seat. For years Plaintiff has allegedly received these accommodations, per order of the doctor on site.

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff was allegedly removed from his room and placed in a segregation cell without the necessary accommodations or any written notice of any rules he had broken. Handcuffs were allegedly placed too tightly on Plaintiff intentionally during the transport, and Plaintiff was wheeled to segregation in an aggressive manner intended to frighten him.

All of the Defendants allegedly ignored Plaintiff's pleas for a room that would accommodate his medical condition, remarking that Plaintiff should have thought of that before pursuing lawsuits against them. For six days Plaintiff was allegedly kept in the cell with no way to safely use the toilet or to clean himself. He was not permitted to send out any correspondence, including legal mail. He was allegedly forced to sit and lay in his own urine and feces, with no change of clothes, soap, toothpaste, toothbrush, or other necessities during this entire time.

Powers v Block

10-27-2015 Illinois:

Powers v Block

Powers' Complaint states a claim for violating his due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 910 (7th Cir. 2005). The United States Supreme Court has held that "due process requires that the conditions and duration of confinement under the Act bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are committed." Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 265 (2001). The Supreme Court has also opined that involuntarily committed mentally challenged persons have a substantive due process right to "conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these conditions." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982).

The Seventh Circuit has extended and summarized Youngerberg to include those individuals committed because they are sexually violent: "(a) committed persons are entitled to some treatment, and (b) what that treatment entails must be decided by mental-health professionals." Lane v. Williams, 689 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2012)(internal quotation omitted). In other words, the Seventh Circuit has held that "Youngerberg holds that, under the due process clause, detainees are entitled to non-punitive programs designed using the exercise of professional judgment. . . ." Id. at 883.

Here, Powers has alleged that his treatment at Rushville has been so minimal and so inadequate that it has violated his Due Process Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that Powers receive some treatment. Powers has alleged that he is, essentially, not receiving any. Therefore, Powers has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Jennifer Block, Gerrold Carreon, Shan Jumper, and Liberty Health Care Corporation.

In addition, Powers has alleged that Defendants Block, Carreon, Jumper, and Paula Lodge have retaliated against him because he has previously filed grievances and lawsuits against them and others at Rushville. Specifically, Powers contends that Defendants have threatened him, removed privileges, and withheld treatment because he has filed grievances and lawsuits. As such, Powers has stated a retaliation claim in violation of his First Amendment rights.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: