Bolden v. Donathan

C.D. Illinois

Bolden v. Donathan

DecidedMarch 28, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-04114

StatusUnknown

This text of Bolden v. Donathan (Bolden v. Donathan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolden v. Donathan, (C.D. Ill. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DONNELL BOLDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-cv-4114 ) GREG DONATHAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER – AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, files an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 17). The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). A court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint states a federal claim. This case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Program Director Greg Donathan and Assistant Program Director Erin Posey as Defendants. Plaintiff complains about inadequate dental care at the facility. Since his arrival at Rushville on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff has submitted multiple requests to see a dentist to have a rotten wisdom tooth pulled and another tooth filled. Plaintiff has not been examined by a dentist. Plaintiff states he asked other staff who could be responsible if there is no dentist, and Plaintiff was told Defendants Donathan and Posey because they oversee the facility. ANALYSIS As a civil detainee, Plaintiff’s claim for constitutionally inadequate dental care arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335,

353-54 (7th Cir. 2018) (detainees entitled to adequate medical care). To establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation, a detainee must show: “(1) there was an objectively serious medical need; (2) the defendant committed a volitional act concerning the [plaintiff’s] medical need; (3) that act was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances in terms of responding to the [plaintiff’s] medical need; and (4) the defendant act[ed] purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly with respect to the risk of harm.” Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., Illinois, 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a challenged action is reasonable, the court must consider the “totality of facts and circumstances.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 819 (7th Cir. 2020). “Dental care is an important need for inmates, and dental conditions accompanied by pain can constitute an objectively serious medical need.” Suleiman v. Wexford Health Source, Inc., No. 18 CV 50007, 2021 WL 1121119, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2021) (citing Bd. v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff names Donathan and Posey as Defendants, but he does not include any specific

allegations to demonstrate that they were personally involved in any constitutional deprivation. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”). There is no respondeat superior under § 1983. In other words, Defendants cannot be liable based only on their status as the supervisor of others. Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 664 (7th Cir. 2019). Officials are accountable for their own acts; they are not vicariously liable for the conduct of subordinates. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009); Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193, 203-05 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). If prison officials are named, they must be named in their individual capacities,

and Plaintiff must allege that the official personally participated in the deprivation or was deliberately reckless as to the misconduct of subordinates or was aware and condoned, acquiesced, or turned a blind eye to it. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Donathan and Posey. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a FINAL opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. His Second Amended Complaint MUST clearly state what happened, when it happened, which Defendants were involved, how each Defendant was involved, and any harm Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff MUST also provide the date each allegation occurred or a specific timeframe. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must stand complete on its own and must not refer to his prior Complaints. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely Second Amended Complaint, or if it fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DONNELL BOLDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-cv-4114 ) GREG DONATHAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER – AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, files an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 17). The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). A court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint states a federal claim. This case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Program Director Greg Donathan and Assistant Program Director Erin Posey as Defendants. Plaintiff complains about inadequate dental care at the facility. Since his arrival at Rushville on February 10, 2022, Plaintiff has submitted multiple requests to see a dentist to have a rotten wisdom tooth pulled and another tooth filled. Plaintiff has not been examined by a dentist. Plaintiff states he asked other staff who could be responsible if there is no dentist, and Plaintiff was told Defendants Donathan and Posey because they oversee the facility. ANALYSIS As a civil detainee, Plaintiff’s claim for constitutionally inadequate dental care arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335,

353-54 (7th Cir. 2018) (detainees entitled to adequate medical care). To establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation, a detainee must show: “(1) there was an objectively serious medical need; (2) the defendant committed a volitional act concerning the [plaintiff’s] medical need; (3) that act was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances in terms of responding to the [plaintiff’s] medical need; and (4) the defendant act[ed] purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly with respect to the risk of harm.” Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., Illinois, 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a challenged action is reasonable, the court must consider the “totality of facts and circumstances.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 819 (7th Cir. 2020). “Dental care is an important need for inmates, and dental conditions accompanied by pain can constitute an objectively serious medical need.” Suleiman v. Wexford Health Source, Inc., No. 18 CV 50007, 2021 WL 1121119, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2021) (citing Bd. v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff names Donathan and Posey as Defendants, but he does not include any specific

allegations to demonstrate that they were personally involved in any constitutional deprivation. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”). There is no respondeat superior under § 1983. In other words, Defendants cannot be liable based only on their status as the supervisor of others. Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 664 (7th Cir. 2019). Officials are accountable for their own acts; they are not vicariously liable for the conduct of subordinates. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009); Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193, 203-05 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). If prison officials are named, they must be named in their individual capacities,

and Plaintiff must allege that the official personally participated in the deprivation or was deliberately reckless as to the misconduct of subordinates or was aware and condoned, acquiesced, or turned a blind eye to it. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Donathan and Posey. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a FINAL opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. His Second Amended Complaint MUST clearly state what happened, when it happened, which Defendants were involved, how each Defendant was involved, and any harm Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff MUST also provide the date each allegation occurred or a specific timeframe. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must stand complete on its own and must not refer to his prior Complaints. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely Second Amended Complaint, or if it fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have a final opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely Second Amended Complaint, or if the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Second Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.

2) The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Section 1983 complaint form.

ENTERED: 3/28/2024

s/ James E. Shadid James E. Shadid United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bolden v. Donathan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-donathan-ilcd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack