Hunt v. Lutz

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois
DecidedAugust 26, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02036
StatusUnknown

This text of Hunt v. Lutz (Hunt v. Lutz) 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
Hunt v. Lutz, (C.D. Ill. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

TAVARIS EARL HUNT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 24-2036 ) NICOLE LUTZ, et al., ) Defendants. )

ORDER COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge: Before the Court for screening is a Complaint (Doc. 1) filed by Plaintiff Tavaris Earl Hunt. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5). I. COMPLAINT A. Screening Standard The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual allegations as accurate, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (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 omitted). B. Factual Allegations Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations against Sergeant Nicole Lutz, Champaign County Sheriff Dustin Heuerman, and Correctional Officers John Doe #1 and #2.

Plaintiff asserts he informed staff of the following medical conditions during intake at the Champaign County Jail in the early morning hours of December 11, 2023: 1) he has high blood pressure for which he had forgotten to take his medication the previous day; 2) he has asthma for which he requires medication and an inhaler that were not in his possession; 3) he had previous health complications due to COVID-19; and 4) he had

been drinking alcohol, smoking, and felt depressed, paranoid, stressed, and suffering from mood swings. He was put in a holding cell with a very thin mattress, no sheets, and a small blanket. He asked Defendant Lutz for an extra blanket and extra mattress because the cell was freezing cold. Defendant Lutz denied his request. Within the first hour in the holding cell, Plaintiff alleges he became lightheaded,

and it became progressively harder for him to breathe. He begged Defendants Lutz and John Does #1 and #2 to contact medical staff but they told him there was no medical staff overnight and he would be fine until they arrived in the morning. While at the door asking for help, he became dizzy, had trouble breathing, and lost consciousness at which time he fell and hit his head. When he regained consciousness, he was in the hospital and

noticed that he had chest pain, a bruise in the middle of his chest, and skin missing from that same spot. Plaintiff was later told by John Doe #1 that he had used his knuckles to perform sternum rubs on Plaintiff while he remained unconscious and unresponsive. The Complaint alleges the Champaign County Jail orientation handbook states that in a medical emergency a detainee does not need to fill out a medical request slip,

but the handbook does not define an emergency and does not state what a detainee needs to do to receive emergency medical help. According to the Plaintiff, Champaign County is aware of the unofficial policy and practice of jail staff to delay medical care, even in emergencies. The jail is cutting expenses by having no medical staff work overnight at the expense of detainees’ health. C. Analysis

Pretrial detainees are protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wilson v. Williams, 83 F.3d 870, 875 (7th Cir. 1996). To state a claim for objectively unreasonable medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must plead that he suffered from a serious medical or mental health condition, that the defendants acted purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly with respect to the

consequences of their actions, and that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable—that is, not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim against Defendants Lutz and John Does #1 and #2 for objectively unreasonable medical care when they were aware that he could not breathe and yet denied him

emergency medical care. To state a claim for excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that the “defendants acted deliberately or with callous indifference,” and with either an actual intent to violate the plaintiff’s rights or reckless disregard for those rights. Wilson, 83 F.3d at 875 (internal quotations omitted). The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim against Defendant John Doe #1 for excessive

force when Defendant continued to perform sternum rubs on Plaintiff even when it was futile because Plaintiff would not regain consciousness. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to suggest that Defendant Doe #1 acted with callous indifference and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights when he continued to apply force and caused injuries to Plaintiff. Finally, “[t]o hold defendants liable under § 1983 and Monell, [a plaintiff] must

demonstrate that the defendants’ ‘official policy, widespread custom, or action by an official with final decision-making authority was the “moving force” behind his constitutional injury.’” Daniel v. Cook County, 833 F.3d 728, 734 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dixon v. County of Cook, 819 F.3d 343, 348 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff has stated a Monell claim against Champaign County, based on

allegations that there is an official policy and practice to delay medical care for detainees in emergencies, due to the decision not to have medical staff overnight and the lack of guidance to jail staff and detainees as to what constitutes a medical emergency and how to properly request help during an emergency. However, Plaintiff has not stated a Monell claim against Sheriff Dustin Heuerman. Even though Plaintiff alleges that Heuerman has

official decision-making authority, a Monell claim cannot be brought against an individual in his individual capacity. See Johnson v. Dykstra, 2019 WL 2270356, *3 (N.D. Ind. May 24, 2019) (citing Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed against Heuerman due to his supervisory role over others, the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability)

does not apply to actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). Therefore, Heuerman likewise cannot be held liable on that basis.

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

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
American Hospital Association v. Harris
625 F.2d 1328 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Gonzalez v. Feinerman
663 F.3d 311 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
Jackie Wilson v. James K. Williams
83 F.3d 870 (Seventh Circuit, 1996)
James T. Donald v. Cook County Sheriff's Department
95 F.3d 548 (Seventh Circuit, 1996)
Foodcomm International v. Patrick James Barry
328 F.3d 300 (Seventh Circuit, 2003)
Robert Westefer v. Michael Neal
682 F.3d 679 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Mazurek v. Armstrong
520 U.S. 968 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Gregory Turley v. Dave Rednour
729 F.3d 645 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Michael Alexander v. United States
721 F.3d 418 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Kevin Dixon v. Cook County, Illinois
819 F.3d 343 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
Alfredo Miranda v. County of Lake
900 F.3d 335 (Seventh Circuit, 2018)
Daniel v. Cook County
833 F.3d 728 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunt v. Lutz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-lutz-ilcd-2024.