Powers v. Godinez

2016 IL App (4th) 150137-U

THOMAS POWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.A. GODINEZ, ALYSA WILLIAMS-SCHAFFER, andDR. MAUREEN TWEEDY, Defendants-Appellees.

NO. 4-15-0137

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

February 19, 2016

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from Circuit Court of Schuyler County

No. 14L3

Honorable Scott J. Butler, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE POPE delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in finding plaintiff's civil rights complaint barred by res judicata and granting defendants' motions to dismiss.

¶ 2 In January 2013, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed plaintiff Thomas Powers' civil rights lawsuit and entered judgment in favor of all named defendants, including the defendants named in this appeal. Plaintiff appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was dismissed on February 7, 2014, because plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. On February 21, 2014, plaintiff filed the civil rights complaint at issue here, naming the same defendants and making the same claims rejected by the federal court. In February 2015, the trial court found plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata and granted defendants' motions to dismiss. On appeal, plaintiff alleges the trial court erred when it (1) denied his civil rights complaint based on res judicata and (2) relied upon the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (Commitment Act) (725 ILCS 207/1 to 99 (West 2014)) because his case related to whether the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) personnel were at fault in failing to diagnose and treat his paraphilia. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Plaintiff's Federal Court Civil Rights Complaint

¶ 5 In November 2012, plaintiff filed a pro se section 1983 complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)) in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois against more than 20 defendants, including S.A. Godinez, Alysa Williams-Schaffer, and Dr. Maureen Tweedy, i.e., the named defendants in the case before us. Powers v. IDOC Directors, No. 12-CV-3304 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2013). Plaintiff alleged current and former DOC directors, medical directors, clinical directors, psychologists, and psychiatrists were deliberately indifferent to his mental illness of "paraphilia, not otherwise specified nonconsent and personality disorder, not otherwise specified with antisocial features." Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to diagnose and treat his paraphilia because of the expense. He claimed such failure caused him mental, emotional, and physical injuries and interfered with his liberty interests. According to plaintiff, defendants were responsible for his medical needs while incarcerated but failed to treat his disorder during his three DOC incarcerations dating back to 1989. Even though plaintiff allegedly received mental-health care while incarcerated, he was not diagnosed with "paraphilia, not otherwise specified, non-consent" until June 2012. According to plaintiff, over the course of 25 years, defendants' deliberate indifference caused him to commit crimes, lose his wife, daughter, home, and job, and ultimately be detained pursuant to the Commitment Act (In re Thomas Powers, 2012 MR 0000419 (Winnebago County)).

¶ 6 As to the named defendants in the case sub judice, plaintiff alleged the followingin his federal court case: (1) Godinez failed to establish rules and implement policies for the provision of mental-health services "based on expense to treat," which "facilitated" the failure to diagnose and treat his paraphilia until June 2012; (2) Williams-Schaffer was responsible for providing mental-health treatment to him but failed to diagnose and treat his paraphilia; and (3) Tweedy was one of the mental-health treating physicians while plaintiff was housed at Danville Correctional Center from May 2011 until June 2012 but failed to diagnose and treat him for paraphilia. Plaintiff further alleged all named defendants conspired to deprive him of constitutionally adequate mental-health care by failing to diagnose and treat his condition.

¶ 7 In January 2013, the federal district court dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entered judgment in favor of all the defendants. The district court first concluded the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiff's claims arising from any failure to treat his mental disorder before fall 2010. In addition, the court concluded:

"However, the bigger problem with [p]laintiff's claim is that the facts he alleges do not plausibly suggest that any of the [d]efendants were deliberately indifferent to [p]laintiff's serious mental illness. Plaintiff's factual allegations do not allow an inference that any of the [d]efendants knew that [p]laintiff had been diagnosed with a paraphilia disorder or knew that such a disorder amounted to a serious mental illness for which treatment was required. Plaintiff's imprisonment alone did not imply that he had a serious mental illness needing treatment. He was not imprisoned because of a mental disorder. He was imprisoned toserve a sentence for attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault. People v. Powers, 961 N.E.2d 906, 908 [ ]. No plausible inference arises that [p]laintiff informed any of the [d]efendants during his imprisonment that he suffered from a serious mental illness, needed mental health treatment, or requested to participate in the mental health treatment programs available in prison, such as the sex offender treatment program.

The fact that an expert in [p]laintiff's civil commitment proceedings has opined that [p]laintiff meets the statutory definition of a sexually violent person does not create a plausible inference that [d]efendants were deliberately indifferent to [p]laintiff's serious mental illness during his imprisonment. In short, no plausible inference arises that any of the [d]efendants were aware that [p]laintiff had a serious mental illness during his imprisonment, much less that any [d]efendants disregarded that need." Powers, No. 12-CV-3304 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2013).

¶ 8 In July 2013, the district court denied plaintiff's postjudgment motions. In doing so, the court pointed out exhibits tendered by plaintiff with his postjudgment motions and proposed amended complaint showed he had received mental-health treatment during his incarceration, and he repeatedly refused sex-offender treatment during that time because he asserted he had not committed sex crimes.

¶ 9 Plaintiff appealed the district court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in case No. 13-2579. Two months later, the district court deniedplaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the court did not see "an arguable good faith basis for appeal." The court advised plaintiff he could renew his petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the court of appeals, and plaintiff did so. In November 2013, the Seventh Circuit denied plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and his "request for recruitment of counsel." The court of appeals also denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and ordered him to pay the required filing fee by a certain date or risk dismissal of his appeal. In January 2014, the appeals court denied plaintiff's motion to proceed under a payment plan for filing fees and granted him until January 27, 2014, to pay the filing fee or face dismissal of his appeal. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. On February 7, 2014, his appeal was dismissed, and the mandate was issued.

¶ 10 B. Plaintiff's State Court Civil Rights Complaint

¶ 11 On February 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint in state court (case No. 14-L-3) against six defendants, all of whom had been named defendants in his federal court lawsuit, including Godinez, Williams-Schaffer, and Tweedy. The complaint stated on the cover page it was being brought pursuant to "740 ILCS 23/5." Plaintiff made numerous allegations of "deliberate indifference" and alleged violations of the eighth and fourteenth amendments, implying his complaint may have actually been brought pursuant to section 1983 (28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)).

¶ 12 Plaintiff once again alleged defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental-health needs while he was an inmate between November 2005 and June 2012. Noting he had been seen on numerous occasions by mental-health-care providers at DOC, plaintiff alleged they failed to diagnose and treat his paraphilia because of the cost. Plaintiff argued defendants' actions, or lack thereof, caused him mental and physical injuries and prohibited him from beingtransferred to the Department of Human Services for mental-health treatment pursuant to sections 3-8-5(a), (c), (d) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/3-8-5(a), (c), (d) (West 2014)).

¶ 13 Plaintiff's specific allegations against defendants were nearly identical to those in his federal court complaint. Plaintiff alleged Godinez was deliberately indifferent when he failed to establish rules and implement policies for the provision of mental-health services because of the expense, which "facilitated" the failure to diagnose and treat his paraphilia. Plaintiff alleged Williams-Schaffer was responsible for sex-offender services, including "evaluations to determine mental disorders," and was "duty bound to treat the [p]laintiff's mental health afflictions." He alleged she was deliberately indifferent when she failed to provide treatment to him. Plaintiff alleged Tweedy treated him on numerous occasions between May 2011 and June 2012. Although Tweedy made certain diagnoses, plaintiff alleged she never diagnosed or treated him for paraphilia, and therefore, she was deliberately...