Eason v. Pritzker
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-01157-SPM |
| Parties | HANNIBAL DWAN EASON, #M03226, Plaintiff, v. J. B. PRITZKER, ROB JEFFREYS, ALLEN PASLEY, JOHN DOE, IDOC's Administration Building, JANE DOE, IDOC's Administration Building, WEXFORD, MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, and UNKNOWN PARTIES, Jane Does and John Does, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Hannibal Eason, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 US.C. §§12101-213 ("ADA"). Eason claims that he is hearing disabled, and his communication needs are not being accommodated. He also alleges that due to his race and hearing disability he is targeted and discriminated against by staff.
The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se Complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Eason alleges the following: He was transferred to Menard due to an error by IDOC Administration on October 17, 2018. (Doc. 1, pp. 40, 43). Prior to being transferred, he was designated as an inmate who suffers from a serious mental illness ("SMI"). (Id. at p. 31). In order to transfer him to Menard, the SMI designation was deleted from his record. (Id.). He has attempted to be transferred from Menard and placed in a prison where there "is more deaf awareness and deaf inmates[,]" but his requests for a transfer have been denied. (Id. at pp. 16, 43).
Eason is hearing disabled, and Menard does not accommodate his communication needs. He was not provided a sign language interpreter during the orientation process when he first arrived at Menard in 2018 and during disciplinary hearings. He continues to be denied the use of a sign language interpreter during medical appointments. (Doc. 1, p. 27, 33-35, 40, 44).
Menard also does not provide an adequate and accessible telephone system for hearing disabled inmates. Because Eason is the only inmate at Menard who needs a sign language interpreter or an ADA phone on a constant basis, he is the only hearing disabled inmate at Menard who knows how to use the ADA phone. (Doc. 1, pp. 13, 16). The ADA phone provided does not have a clear connection and frequently "drops" calls. (Id. at pp. 14, 16). Eason is forced to spend a majority of his allotted telephone time trying to retain clear reception. (Id. at p. 14). Defendants know that the reception for the ADA phone is poor but refuse to transfer Eason to a prison with a working ADA phone and other hearing disabled inmates. (Id. at p. 15). Menard provides text-based telecommunications ("TTY," "TDD") and video phone ("VP") equipment that can be used by inmates who are hearing impaired, but the use of these technologies only "garble" the phone call. (Id. at p.15). When Eason is allowed to use the ADA phone, proper procedures are not used by Menard staff. His hands remain cuffed and the quality and conditions of the calls made on theADA phone are not properly recorded by staff after each use. (Id. at pp. 19-24);
Eason is also not provided the same amount of phone time as other inmates. Inmates who are not hearing disabled are allowed fourteen or more telephone calls a week, and Ron Skidmore, the ADA coordinator at Menard, deliberately refuses to accommodate Eason so that he has the same type of access to phone use. (Id. at p. 11-12). Since May 2020, Eason has asked Skidmore twice for five ADA calls per week, but his requests have been ignored. (Id. at p.13). Because Menard does not provide an adequate ADA phone system seven days a week from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. for inmates with hearing disabilities, Eason is prohibited from meaningful family contact and consistent access to attorneys. (Id. at p. 12-13).
Specifically, on October 14, 2020, Eason had to call the same person over and over and the connection would not go through or ring at all. (Doc. 1, p. 24). He also tried to call his brother and the interpreter connection was poor. (Id. at p. 24). On October 16, 2020, Eason made a call to an attorney and the entire call was choppy, garbled, and unclear. (Id. at p. 22). The connection was lost. (Id.). Eason redialed and tried to call another associate. On the second try, the phone connection was so poor the phone did not ring. (Id. at p. 23). Eason then adjusted the phone cord in an attempt to obtain reception and used the voice-carry-over ("VCO") option to place the call. During the call, Eason's hands were handcuffed and not free, which is required for VCO to work. The call did not work, and Eason ended the call. (Id.). Since then, the VCO feature has been disabled. (Id.).
On October 20, 2020, and October 26, 2020, Eason filed documents in the class action lawsuit, Holmes v. Godinez, Case No. 11-cv-02961 (N.D. Ill. 2015), alleging that the defendants in that case were not in compliance with the settlement agreement.1 (Doc. 1, p. 10). As a result ofthe court filings, Ron Skidmore met with Eason on October 27, 2020, to discuss ADA matters. At the meeting, Eason discussed with Skidmore the following: (1) an incident where Wexford workers refused him hearing aid batteries on October 26, 2020; (2) the ineffectiveness of the ADA phone; (3) that he was being refused a head scan that was requested by an audiologist; (4) that his earmolds have been ready since October 2019, and he has never received them; (5) his need for a communication porter for the library; (6) that there is no closed caption provided on Menard movie channels; and (7) the availability of closed caption services during phone use. (Id. at p. 10-11). Since the meeting, however, nothing has improved. As of November 1, 2020, the ADA phone was still inadequate. (Id. at p. 10). Eason claims he has discussed the issues with the phone on more than three occasions with Skidmore. (Id.).
Eason states that because his disability is not being accommodated, he is exploited by staff members and other inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 25). Eason is made fun of by the correctional officers assigned to his gallery, has been assaulted by Menard staff on more than one occasion since October 17, 2020, and mistreated by the orange crush team after knowing that he has difficulties hearing. (Id. at pp. 37, 39. 45). He is also excluded from services, programs, and activities. (Id. at pp. 13, 27). Because he is denied accommodation for his hearing disability and targeted by staff, Eason experiences severe isolation. (Id. at p. 12).
The Court will first dismiss several claims brought by Eason. To survive preliminary review under Section 1915A, a Complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), which includes "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). The plausible allegations must be made against individuals, and when a plaintiff does nothing but state that a group of individuals harmed him without providing more, all he has done is establish that there is a "sheer possibility" that someone in that group harmed him. Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (). Additionally, to state a viable Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant was personally involved in the deprivation of a constitutional right. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014) (); see also Pepper v. Vill. of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 806, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) ().
Here, Eason has failed to state a claim against Defendants pursuant to Section 1983 for constitutional violations. (See Doc. 1, p. 5-8, 17, 27, 38, 44). A majority of the allegations in the Complaint are asserted against the "Defendants" generally, which include J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, Rob Jeffreys, IDOC Director, Allen Palsey, IDOC Chief Legal Officer and ADA Coordinator, John and Jane Does— individuals who are a part of IDOC Administration, Wexford, Menard Correctional Center, and John and Jane Does. (Doc. 1, p. 1). These vague references to a group of defendants, without specific allegations tying individual defendants to the alleged unconstitutional conduct, do not raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to those defendants and do not properly put Defendants on notice of the claims brough against them. Defendants Pritzker, Jeffreys, and Palsey are not even mentioned in the Complaint, and merely including the name of a potential defendant in the case caption is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998) (). A successful complaint generally alleges "the who, what, when, where, and how" and describes what each defendant did or failed to do to violate constitutional rights. See DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F. 2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, Defendants cannot be held liable based solely on their positions as administrators or supervisors under Section 1983. Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F. 3d 612, 651(2...
To continue reading
Request your trial