Eagan v. Dempsey, 17-3184

Decision Date09 February 2021
Docket NumberNo. 17-3184,17-3184
Parties Shawn EAGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael DEMPSEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Andrew P. LeGrand, Andrew Hayward Bean, Attorneys, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shawn Eagan, Pro Se.

Julie Ann Teuscher, Attorney, Cassiday Schade LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Michael Dempsey.

Christina T. Hansen, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Amy Moorhouse, James Berry, Travis Sullivan, and Dillon Law.

Before Easterbrook, Ripple, and Rovner, Circuit Judges.

Ripple, Circuit Judge.

Shawn Eagan, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, brought this section 1983 action to seek redress for alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment by medical and custodial staff at Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac").1 Mr. Eagan brings this appeal, claiming that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motions to recruit and appoint counsel for him. He also submits, in the alternative, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants.

After careful study of the record as well as the written and oral arguments of counsel, we hold that, in its consideration of the motion to recruit counsel, the district court departed significantly from our decision in Pruitt v. Mote , 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We also hold that Mr. Eagan has established that, but for this departure, there is a reasonable likelihood that the assistance of counsel would have altered the outcome of the defendantssummary judgment motion with respect to Mr. Eagan's claims based on Dr. Dempsey's decisions on December 1 and 2, 2014. Mr. Eagan has not established, however, that there is a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome with respect to the officer defendants. Indeed, the record clearly supports the district court's grant of summary judgment in their favor.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

IBACKGROUND
A.

Mr. Eagan suffers from a variety of mental illnesses including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. On November 30, 2014, Mr. Eagan engaged in self-harming behaviors while under suicide watch. Pontiac maintains crisis-watch cells that are constructed of concrete and have steel doors with a plexiglass window in the door. These cells also have a "chuckhole" through which inmates can put their hands to allow the officers to cuff their hands behind their backs. Officers check and monitor inmates in crisis-watch cells on a thirty-minute, fifteen-minute, ten-minute, or continuous basis, depending on the orders left by medical and correctional personnel with responsibility for making those decisions. Under standing orders relating to Mr. Eagan, the officers monitored him every ten minutes.

Because of his illnesses, Mr. Eagan often hears the voice of a woman named "Lucina." When Lucina screams, Mr. Eagan attempts to dull the pain or quiet the screams by self-inflicting wounds and banging his head. Specifically, when Mr. Eagan has a crisis period, he attempts to assuage the noise and pain of the screams by banging his forehead against the cell door in an effort to induce a headache or to otherwise inflict pain, which he finds more acceptable than Lucina's screams. When the screams take over, Mr. Eagan is sometimes unable to stop himself.2 When the subsequent head-banging occurs, officers generally will grab Mr. Eagan through the bottom chuck, turn him around, and try to lead him out of the cell.

1.

On November 30, 2014, Mr. Eagan was in his crisis-watch cell when he heard Lucina scream. He had been banging his head for about two minutes when Officer Berry arrived, cuffed his hands, and took him to an area called the "holding tank." There, officers shackled Mr. Eagan to a bench, but Mr. Eagan started to bang his head backwards against the wall. Officers Sullivan and Law then had to restrain him inside of the holding tank. CMT Moorhouse entered the holding tank to tend to the bleeding cut on Mr. Eagan's forehead. Mr. Eagan continued to hear Lucina's screams.

After tending to Mr. Eagan's forehead wound, CMT Moorhouse stepped out of the holding tank and made a phone call to seek further direction. Upon her return, she instructed the officers that Dr. Dempsey had ordered that they place Mr. Eagan back in his cell on a ten-minute watch. Officers Sullivan, Law, and Berry therefore escorted Mr. Eagan back to his crisis-watch cell. Dr. Dempsey states that Mr. Eagan was warned that if he was unable to remain safe, he would receive forced injections to prevent him from continuously harming himself.

Within minutes, the screams restarted, and Mr. Eagan again started banging his head against the plexiglass. Officer Sullivan ordered Mr. Eagan to cuff up, notified Lieutenant Zook, and applied wrist and ankle restraints. Lieutenant Zook and Officer Sullivan then escorted Mr. Eagan to the holding tank. After he was shackled to the bench, CMT Moorhouse again tended to Mr. Eagan's wound, which had become deeper.

After caring for Mr. Eagan's wound, CMT Moorhouse left and again called Dr. Dempsey. Dr. Dempsey ordered emergency enforced injections of 10 mg of Haldol and 50 mg of Benadryl. Dr. Dempsey explained in his affidavit that he prescribed Haldol because Haldol was similar to Risperdal, a drug Mr. Eagan had taken in the past with minimal side effects. Dr. Dempsey prescribed a low dosage of Haldol because temporary side effects of involuntary movement and tremors are known to occur. Dr. Dempsey's prescription of Benadryl, an anticholinergic drug, was to treat or prevent any Haldol side effects; Benadryl also has the added benefit of containing potent antihistaminic, anxiolytic, and sedative properties. After a nurse administered these medications by injection, officers escorted Mr. Eagan back to his original crisis-watch cell.

2.

In his deposition, Mr. Eagan stated that after the leg shackles and handcuffs were removed, he "[didn't] know what happened," but that he fell asleep on the floor until breakfast was distributed the next morning, December 1.3 He recalled waking up on the floor. Mr. Eagan stated that his upper body felt locked, that he was stuck on his back, and that he was unable to get up to receive breakfast that morning. Mr. Eagan further stated that he experienced stiffness in his neck and that while his jaw had not yet been locked open, his ability to move his jaw was "off and on."4 Mr. Eagan said he was able to crawl around, but after urinating in the corner of his cell, returned to lying on the floor until right before the 3:00 p.m. shift.

The crisis-watch observation logs, in which officers noted their observations of Mr. Eagan every ten minutes, recite that Mr. Eagan was on his bed when he was returned to his crisis-watch cell at 10:30 p.m. on November 30, 2014, and remained on his bed until December 1, 2014, at 6:50 a.m. The logs indicate that Mr. Eagan moved between his bed and the door from 7:00 a.m. until 1:10 p.m. and ate on his bed at 10:40 a.m. The crisis-watch logs indicate that Mr. Eagan was on the floor until 1:20 p.m. Mr. Eagan was observed back on his bed at 2:40 p.m.

Dr. Dempsey stated in his affidavit that he had evaluated Mr. Eagan at his cell around 9:35 a.m. on December 1, 2014. Dr. Dempsey stated that Mr. Eagan stood at his cell door and told him that, the night before, "the voices kept telling [him] to beat [his] head."5 Mr. Eagan also reported that he had received the Haldol and Benadryl the night before, and that he had woken up hungry. Dr. Dempsey stated that Mr. Eagan did not complain of stiffness or an inability to move his body or jaw or of any headache. In addition, Dr. Dempsey observed Mr. Eagan exhibit a full range of motion and ability to move his jaw normally when Mr. Eagan spoke with him.

According to Mr. Eagan, when the 3:00 p.m. shift began, his neighbor told the watch officer that something was wrong with Mr. Eagan. When the watch officer looked into Mr. Eagan's cell, the officer said that nothing was wrong with Mr. Eagan and that Mr. Eagan's situation was "funny."6 Mr. Eagan recalled that Officer Sullivan was one of the officers on the 3:00 p.m. shift but did not remember the other officers. Mr. Eagan states that Officer Sullivan, among others, checked on him throughout the day, and that Officer Sullivan mocked Mr. Eagan and laughed at his condition. In his complaint, Mr. Eagan stated that when he asked for help, Officer Sullivan told Mr. Eagan, "You're faking."7

The crisis-watch logs indicate that Officer Leipold conducted the observations from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Officer Sullivan made observations from 6:10 p.m. until 6:50 p.m. Officers Leipold, Pyle, and Law performed the checks from 7:00 p.m. until the end of the shift at 11:00 p.m. From 11:00 p.m. until 5:50 a.m. the following morning, the officers on duty observed Mr. Eagan on the floor.

3.

Mr. Eagan recalled waking up on the floor on December 2, 2014, around breakfast time with his jaw locked wide-open. Mr. Eagan said the pain in his jaw was excruciating and that it hurt so much that he cried. Mr. Eagan also stated that his chest and neck were stiff and tight. According to the declaration of a neighboring inmate, Andrew McKissick, Mr. Eagan "started calling for help because his neck and face was locking up."8 McKissick alerted officers for help. At approximately 9:00 a.m., Major Susan Prentiss approached Mr. Eagan's cell, and Mr. Eagan pointed to his jaw. Mr. Eagan recalled that Major Prentiss attempted to calm him down and said that she would get a medical technician to see him. Sometime later (but before 3:00 p.m.), CMT Jennifer Tinsley evaluated Mr. Eagan. Mr. Eagan continued to point to his jaw. Mr. Eagan stated that CMT Tinsley told him that she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
227 cases
  • Williams v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • 2 Febrero 2023
    ...that “the harm that befell” Dontrell was “objectively, sufficiently serious and a substantial risk to his . . . health or safety.” Eagan, 987 F.3d at 693. Plaintiff must then show that Defendant was indifferent to the substantial risk and that Defendant's deliberate indifference injured Don......
  • Durley v. Hohenstern
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 23 Febrero 2023
    ...F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir. 2019). “This is a mandatory, threshold inquiry that must be determined before moving to the second inquiry.” Eagan, 987 F.3d at 682. To do the plaintiff must show he contacted at least three lawyers and provide the court with (1) the lawyers' names; (2) their address......
  • Durley v. York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 1 Noviembre 2022
    ...doing so,' and (2) ‘given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?'” Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 65455 Cir. 2007)). And, given the scarcity of pro bono counsel resources, the court ......
  • Durley v. York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 1 Noviembre 2022
    ...doing so,' and (2) ‘given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?'” Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 65455 Cir. 2007)). And, given the scarcity of pro bono counsel resources, the court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT