Delaboin v. United States
| Docket Number | 21 C 50079 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Parties | Rodney Delaboin 60217-060, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Rodney Delaboin, formerly an inmate at USP Thomson, brought this Federal Tort Claims Act suit, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), alleging that he was assaulted by staff and denied adequate living conditions, including food water, and medical care, while in restraints from Oct. 2, 2019, to Oct 6, 2019. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) the medical negligence claim must be dismissed because of Plaintiff's non-compliance with the Illinois Healing Art Malpractice Act, 735 ILCS 5/2-622; and (2) summary judgment should be granted as to the remaining claims because Plaintiff at most suffered de minimis injuries in the form of minor abrasions, which are insufficient to maintain an FTCA action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2). The first part of the motion is denied as moot, as the medical malpractice claim was dismissed at Plaintiff's request. (See Dkt. No. 124). The remainder of the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's negligence claim related to his living conditions is dismissed. Plaintiff may proceed with his assault and battery claims; however, because his injuries are de minimis, he may not recover for mental or emotional injuries. Plaintiff's second response to the summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 130) is stricken, as it was filed without leave and in any event does not address the relevant issues.
I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing and responding to motions for summary judgment in this court. The rule is intended “to aid the district court, ‘which does not have the advantage of the parties' familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the time combing the record to locate the relevant information,' in determining whether a trial is necessary.” Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted.) Local Rule 56.1(a) requires the moving party to provide a statement of material facts that complies with Local Rule 56.1(d). LR 56.1(a)(2). Local Rule 56.1(d) requires that LR 56.1(d)(2).
The opposing party must then respond to the movant's proposed statements of fact. Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005); LR 56.1(e). In the case of any disagreement, LR 56.1(e)(3). “[M]ere disagreement with the movant's asserted facts is inadequate if made without reference to specific supporting material.” Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Defendants served him with a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment” as required by Local Rule 56.2. (Dkt. No. 116.) Plaintiff responded by filing a Memorandum of Law opposing the motion , a partial response to Defendant's Statement of Facts , and exhibits (Dkt. No. 126). Plaintiff addresses only some of Defendant's factual statements, and his responses often are non-responsive, argumentative, or consist of unsupported contentions of wrongdoing, collusion, or falsification of records by prison officials. The Court will consider only those responses that are supported by the record or about which Plaintiff could properly testify. See James v Hale, 959 F.3d 307, 315 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4)); Sistrunk v. Khan, 931 F.Supp.2d 849, 854 (N.D. Ill. 2013); Fed.R.Evid. 602. The Court will not look beyond the cited material, however. See Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 898 (7th Cir. 2003) (). Where Plaintiff has not properly responded to a certain fact or has admitted it, the Court will accept it as true to the extent supported by the record. Lamz, 321 F.3d at 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
The Court is mindful that failure to strictly comply with Local Rule 56.1, or indeed to respond at all to a motion for summary judgment, does not automatically warrant judgment in favor of the moving party. Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006) (). The Court will apply these standards in evaluating the evidence.
I. Relevant Facts[1]
Plaintiff Rodney Delaboin, who was formerly housed at USP Thomson, brought this Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit alleging that he was assaulted by staff and denied adequate living conditions, including food, water, and medical care, while in restraints in October 2019. (Def.'s Statement of Facts (“SOF”), Dkt. No. 115, at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff is serving a 113-month sentence in federal custody for a firearms conviction. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has a “pretty extensive disciplinary history,” including for assault, engaging in sexual acts, making sexual proposals or threats, and indecent exposure. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Because of his prison disciplinary history, Delaboin was placed in the Bureau of Prison's Special Management Unit (SMU) program twice, once at USP Lewisburg, and once at USP Thomson.[2] (Id. at ¶ 4.)
The SMU program is a form of restrictive housing where enhanced management is necessary to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff was transferred to USP Thomson in July 2019. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
Correctional Officer Emma Gamble alleges that Plaintiff sexually assaulted her by ejaculating on her through the food slot in his cell on Oct. 2, 2019, at about 5:10 p.m. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff denies doing so. (Id.; see Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF, Dkt. No. 125, pg. 17, ¶ 7.) BOP policy provides that in the event of an alleged sexual assault, the individuals involved must undergo a medical assessment. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Due to this policy, a lieutenant instructed two officers to escort Plaintiff to a medical office in the Echo Unit rotunda for a medical assessment. (Id. at ¶ 9.)[3] The officers escorting Plaintiff alleged that Plaintiff “propelled his upper torso” into them once they were in the rotunda, and that Plaintiff struck another officer who came to assist. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff denies these allegations and asserts that the officers assaulted him in the rotunda. (Id.; see Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF, Dkt. No. 125, pg. 18, at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff was then escorted to a cell where four-point restraints were applied. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
Nurse Anthony Simcox performed a videotaped medical assessment of Plaintiff while he was in four-point restraints on Oct. 2, 2019, at approximately 6:30 p.m., to determine whether Plaintiff sustained any injuries as a result of the use of force. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff complained of tenderness on the right side of his face and a dislocated right elbow. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Nurse Simcox did not observe any injuries. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff contends that his head was swollen to twice its size and that Nurse Simcox failed to record his injuries. (See Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s SOF, Dkt. No. 125, pg. 18, at ¶ 12.)
Plaintiff testified that he was in four-point restraints from about 5:45 p.m. on Oct. 2, 2019 to about 11 a.m. on Oct. 6, 2019, when he was downgraded to ambulatory restraints. (Def.'s SOF, Dkt. No. 115, at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was released from restraints at about 1 p.m. on Oct. 6, 2019. (Id.)
Prison officials are authorized to apply physical restraints to an inmate to gain control if the inmate appears to be dangerous because the inmate assaults another individual, becomes violent, or displays signs of imminent violence. (Id. at ¶ 16.) When an inmate is placed in four-point restraints, staff are to look for a pattern of non-disruptive behavior over time as an indication that the inmate is no longer a disruptive threat. (Id.) Based on staff assessment, the prisoner may either be removed from restraints, remain in them, or be placed in progressively more or less restrictive restraints. (Id.)
Restraint checks are performed, with correctional staff observing the inmate every 15 minutes from outside the cell and making notes in a log regarding the inmate's behavior. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Lieutenants assess the inmate inside the cell every two hours to evaluate the inmate's behavior and log their observations.[4] (Id.) Psychology staff assess the inmate every 24 hours, and medical staff assess the inmate inside the cell twice every eight-hour shift. (Id.) These assessments were performed on Plaintiff while he was in restraints. (Id. at ¶ 18.)
Plaintiff alleges that he sustained the following injuries as a result of being assaulted by correctional officials while in restraints: a cut on his finger from being stomped on (healed), wounded shins from being hit with a baton (leaving scars but otherwise healed), and a cut on his wrist from the restraints (healed). (Id. at ¶ 19.)
Medical staff evaluated Plaintiff more than 20 times while he was in restraints. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Only one injury was noted during those evaluations, a cut on Plaintiff's finger that Nurse Simcox documented on Oct. 2, 2019, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial