McCray v. Waterkotte

1

LEONARDO MCCRAY, Plaintiff, v. CODY WATERKOTTE, et.al., Defendants

No. 23-4015

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

April 18, 2023

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

JAMES E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. [12].

The Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint for failure to articulate a constitutional violation. See March 29, 2023, Case Management Order. Although it was unclear whether Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies in his pleading, the Court allowed the pro se litigant additional time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now complied, and his motion is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [12].

The Court notes Plaintiff is detained at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). [6]. 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).

Additionally 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 grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.

In reviewing the amended complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. See 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. U.S., 721 F.3d 418 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).

Plaintiff again names Internal Affairs Officer Cody Water Kotte and Security Therapy Aides Curtis Parson and Karen Smith as Defendants, but he has also added Program Director Greg Donathan, Security Director William Epperson, Nursing Director Heather Hogan, and Security Therapy Aid (STA) Gary Kuhlan. Plaintiff also chose not to include four former Defendants: Clinical Director Shane Jumper, STA Andrea Cobb and Therapists Gerald Carreon and Angela Holt. Therefore, the Court will dismiss these individuals.

Plaintiff's amended complaint repeats some of the same claims previously considered and dismissed. For instance, Plaintiff again takes issue with Defendant Internal Affairs Officer Water Kotte questioning him on January 9, 2023, the day after he had a “physical altercation” with another resident. (Amd. Comp., p. 1). The Defendant read Plaintiff the warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966) and Plaintiff chose not to answer questions. Plaintiff asked if he was going to face criminal charges, and Defendant Water Kotte said yes, but he was unsure what the charges would be until he spoke with the states attorney.

Plaintiff believes law enforcement officers should have conducted any interview or investigation. Plaintiff also notes he received the Miranda warnings again when he was called before the Behavior Committee, but he again chose not to answer any questions and asked for an attorney.

As previously noted, the Schuyler County States Attorney filed criminal charges against the Plaintiff on January 31, 2023, charging him with felony, aggravated battery of an individual over 60 years old. See March 29, 2023 Order, p. 4, FN1. A public defender was appointed to represent Plaintiff and the case is still pending.

As the Court previously explained, the Rushville disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings and Plaintiff did not have a right to retained or appointed counsel. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 315, 316 (1976). In addition, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination typically does not apply to such disciplinary hearings. Id. at 316. However, a prisoner or detainee may claim the privilege at a disciplinary hearing “where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceeding.” Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).

In this case, Plaintiff was explicitly warned any statements he gave could be used in future criminal proceedings and he was specifically given Miranda warnings any time he was asked about the incident. See Baxter, 425 U.S. at 315 (prisoners' statements at disciplinary hearings are not admissible in criminal cases unless prisoners have first received Miranda warnings, but Miranda warnings not required for prisoners' statements in disciplinary hearings).

In addition, his decision to exercise his Fifth Amendment right not to speak did not entitle Plaintiff to have an attorney at his disciplinary hearing. See ie. Dabney v. Anderson, 92 F.Supp.2d 801, 803 (N.D.Ind. March 30 20000.

Finally, as the Court previously explained, while Rushville could investigate and provide information, only the State' Attorney could decide whether to file criminal charges. See March 29, 2023 Order, p. 6. Plaintiff's disagreement with the involvement of the Internal Affairs Officer does not equate to a constitutional violation.

Plaintiff has also added three new claims in his amended complaint. First, Plaintiff has provided additional information concerning his request for medical care immediately after the January 8, 2023, altercation. Plaintiff previously claimed Defendant Smith denied his request to see medical staff, but he did not identify any injury, nor what medical care was needed. Plaintiff now says he was ultimately diagnosed with a fractured right hand. Plaintiff does not state who long he went without care. However, for purposes of notice pleading, Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Smith violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when she delayed medical care.

Plaintiff next claims the Behavior Committee violated his due process rights when they decided to defer their decision on discipline to see if criminal charges were filed, and Plaintiff was forced to remain in the most restrictive housing status or special management status during this time. Plaintiff says, “the issue is” Rushville is not a prison and “is designed to be a least restrictive, non-punitive environment.” (Amd. Comp, p. 3).

Therefore, allowing the facility to place a resident on special management status, or segregation, is a violation of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff has not articulated a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Plaintiff admits he was moved to the more restrictive status after a physical altercation with another resident, and law enforcement was considering the imposition of criminal charges based on Plaintiff's behavior. In addition, Plaintiff did not allege an extensive period of time on special management status.

“Procedural due process protections are triggered only when the deprivation suffered is constitutionally significant. Demotions in status and the loss of some privileges are not the kind of significant deprivations that trigger procedural due process protections.” Brown v. McAdory, 2011 WL 6016369, at *2 (C.D.Ill.Dec. 2, 2011)(placing Rushville detainee in segregation pending review “of disciplinary charge alleging threatening and intimidating behavior does not violate Plaintiff's procedural due process rights.”); Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 711 (7th Cir. 2008)(holding that involuntary detainees have no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to discretionary segregation imposed for protective purposes); Bell v. McAdory, 2014 WL 3907796, at *5-6 (C.D.Ill Aug. 11, 2014)(Court finds that Defendants did not violate plaintiff's due process claims by keeping him in the Special Management Unit and the infirmary for an extended period of time).

Finally, Plaintiff claims he saw an outside orthopedic surgeon for his injured hand on February 1, 2023. Plaintiff claims the outside doctor stated Plaintiff's right hand should not be placed in cuffs or black box restraints. Nonetheless, Defendant Gary Kulhan used both on Plaintiff on March 1, 2023. Plaintiff informed the Defendant the restraints should not be used for medical reasons. Defendant Kulhan asked who issued an order concerning restraints, and Plaintiff noted it was an outside doctor. Defendant Kulhan told Plaintiff such orders had to come from the facility doctor and advised Plaintiff to speak to the doctor to address his concerns.

Plaintiff signed up for sick call and a nurse told him the facility doctor could not write an order concerning black box restraints. Plaintiff then asked for a copy of the outside doctor's recommendations, and he claims the unidentified nurse told him Defendants Kulhan and Parsen told the Defendant Director of Nursing to remove the record.

Plaintiff may not proceed with this claim. First, Plaintiff may not use the opportunity to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims to bring a new, unrelated allegation and avoid payment of the filing fee. Plaintiff did not mention an issue with restraints in his initial complaint, nor could he since the incident occurred after he filed his initial complaint.

Second, whatever Plaintiff's intended claim against Defendants Kulhan and Parsen, it is unrelated to his claim against Defendant Smith and therefore cannot be combined in the same complaint. See George v Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7^th Cir. 2007)(“multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2).

Finally Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. In...