Farris v. Kohlrus
| Decision Date | 13 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-3279 |
| Parties | JACQUELINE FARRIS, Plaintiff, v. ERIK KOHLRUS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
JACQUELINE FARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIK KOHLRUS, et al., Defendants.
No. 17-cv-3279
United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
February 13, 2023
OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. See Def.'s Mot., d/e 213; Pl.'s Mot., d/e 223. Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) seeks summary judgment on Count VIII and Count IX of Plaintiff Jacqueline Farris's Second Amended Complaint, which comprise her claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Ms. Farris seeks summary judgment on those counts only as to liability. With no material facts in dispute, the Court finds that IDOC's treatment of Ms. Farris violated both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Ms. Farris's motion is GRANTED, and IDOC's motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court draws the following facts from the parties' statements of undisputed facts and the evidence they submitted. The Court deems admitted those facts not in dispute and any facts disputed without an evidentiary basis. See L.R. 7.1(D)(2)(b)(2).
On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff Jacqueline Farris pled guilty in Illinois state court to possessing between one and fifteen grams of cocaine, a Class 4 felony. People v. Farris, No. 2015-CF-1602 (Cir. Ct. Champaign Cnty.). The circuit court then sentenced Ms. Farris to six years in IDOC custody. See Def.'s Mem. ex. B, d/e 214-2, at 2. In issuing its “Impact Incarceration Sentencing Order,” the circuit court found that Ms. Farris's offense “was committed as the result of the use of . . . or addiction to . . . a controlled substance.” Id. The circuit court further found that Ms. Farris met “the eligibility requirements for possible placement in the Impact Incarceration Program.” Id.
The Impact Incarceration Program, or “boot camp,” provides individuals under Illinois felony sentence with “an alternative to prison styled after the familiar military basic training program.” United States v. Gajdik, 292 F.3d 555, 556 (7th Cir. 2002). An
offender who completes boot camp is entitled to a reduction in his sentence to time served. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(a). If the offender “is not accepted for placement” or “does not successfully complete the program, his term of imprisonment shall be as set forth by the court in its sentencing order.” Id.
Participation in boot camp ordinarily follows from a sentencing judge's recommendation. See id.; see also 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 460.20. A judicial recommendation satisfies only one of eight statutory eligibility requirements, however, and the sentencing judge's word is neither sufficient nor necessary. Cf. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(l) (enabling IDOC to “identify candidates for participation in the program that were not previously recommended and formally submit the names to” the committing state's attorney); see also Solorzano-Patlan v. INS, 207 F.3d 869, 871 n.4 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that IDOC previously had rejected offenders recommended by sentencing judge). To enroll, an offender also must:
1) Be between 17 and 35 years of age
2) Never have participated in the program before or served more than one prior sentence of imprisonment for a felony offense
3) Not have been convicted of certain serious felonies such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and arson;
4) Have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years or less;
5) Be physically able to participate in the program;
6) Not have any mental disorder or disability that would prevent participation; and
7) Consent in writing.
See 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(b)(1-7). But even if an offender satisfies all these criteria, IDOC still “may consider, among other matters, . . . whether [the offender's] participation in the impact program may pose a risk to the safety or security of any person.” Id. The program's enabling statute therefore leaves to IDOC's discretion the decision whether to admit a particular candidate.
IDOC has concluded that certain categories of offenders are definitionally ineligible for boot camp. This includes offenders who require psychotropic medication for mental or emotional illness. Before an offender may be admitted to boot camp, he must undergo a mental-health evaluation “that focuses on ‘current and previous mental health issues that could compromise the offender's ability to successfully complete the rigorous physical requirements or adhere to strict disciplinary requirements of the program.” Def.'s Mem., d/e 214, at 5 ¶ 30. If IDOC finds “no evidence of current mental disorder that would compromise [an offender's] participation in the
program,” IDOC categorizes the offender as “Priority #1,” which means that the offender does “[n]ot have any mental disorder or disability that would prevent participation.” Id. at 3 ¶ 12. If the offender reports a “history” of psychological diagnoses or treatment, IDOC categorizes the offender as “Priority #2” and performs further screening to determine whether the “chronic or episodic mental health problem . . . may influence [the offender's] ability to complete the program.” Id. ¶ 13. And if the offender's “mental health needs require[] psychotropic medications,” IDOC classifies the offender as “Priority #3” and deems him ineligible for boot camp. Id. at 5 ¶ 28. IDOC's internal directives and policies do not contemplate an exception to this rule. Instead, IDOC expressly “prohibits . . . deeming a prisoner on psychotropic medication eligible for the Impact Incarceration Program.” Id. at 6 ¶ 36.
Ms. Farris was admitted to the Logan Correctional Center for processing and placement on December 4, 2015. When Ms. Farris began her sentence, she was 31 years old, a first-time felony offender, a first-time prisoner, and under a six-year sentence. Cf. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(b)(1-4). Upon arrival, Ms. Farris received a grey uniform screen-printed with the words “boot camp.” She also
received a one-page memorandum that instructed her not to “loan [her] IIP [Impact Incarceration Program] clothing to other IIP inmate [sic].” See Pl.'s Mot. ex. 9, d/e 223-9, at 1. Ms. Farris then signed two forms: a release identifying her as “the undersigned participant in the Impact Incarceration Program,” and another release bearing the title “Impact Incarceration Form Consent to Participate.” Id. ex. 10, d/e 223-10, at 1-3; cf. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(b)(7) (requiring that boot-camp participants “consent in writing”).
Ms. Farris underwent a first-level mental health screening later that day. The screening consisted of a brief interview with Amy Rude, a licensed clinical social worker employed by Wexford Health Services, IDOC's healthcare provider. Ms. Rude memorialized the screening by checking two boxes on Logan's “Mental Health Impact Incarceration” form. One check designated Ms. Farris as “Priority #1,” indicating that Ms. Rude had found “no evidence of current mental disorder . . . that may compromise the offender's participation.” See Pl.'s Mot. ex. 11, d/e 223-11, at 1. The other check affirmed that, “[b]ased on the medical screening above,” Ms. Farris was “[a]pproved to participate in the Impact Incarceration program.” Id.; cf. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(b)(6) (requiring
that boot-camp participants “not have any mental disorder or disability that would prevent participation”).
Ms. Farris also underwent a medical screening. Robert Allison, a Wexford physician's assistant, conducted Ms. Farris's examination. Like Ms. Rude, Mr. Allison found that Ms. Farris satisfied IDOC's physical-health qualifications and was “[a]pproved to participate in the Impact Incarceration Program.” See Pl.'s Mot. ex. 13, d/e 223-13, at 1; see also 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1.1(b)(5) (requiring that boot-camp participants “be physically able to participate in physical activities”).
On December 21, 2015, Logan submitted Ms. Farris's “Offender Classification Form” to IDOC's transfer coordinator. See Pl.'s Mot. ex. 14, d/e 223-14, at 1. The form indicated that Logan's superintendent had approved Ms. Farris for admission to boot camp. Id. at 4. At Logan's recommendation, Ms. Farris was to be placed at “VIENNA: DIXON SPRINGS BOOT.” Id. As of December 27, 2015, Ms. Farris remained approved and eligible for boot camp. See Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Second Interrogs., d/e 223-15, at ¶ 2.
On December 28, 2015, Ms. Farris told a mental-health staffer that a correctional officer, Defendant Erik Kohlrus, had engaged in
several sex acts with her earlier that day. The parties agree that Ms. Farris and Officer Kohlrus had sex and that Ms. Farris promptly reported it. They dispute only whether the sex was consensual. But see 720 ILCS 5/11-9.2(e) (“A person is deemed incapable of consent, for purposes of this Section, when he or she is a probationer, parolee, releasee, inmate in custody of a penal system or person detained or civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, or a person in the custody of a law enforcement agency or employee.”). Ms. Farris reported feeling “anxious” and asked to speak with a psychiatrist. Ms. Farris also told the staffer that she previously had “minimized” her history of psychiatric treatment “because of rumors she'd heard about the advisability of denying symptoms to get cleared for boot camp.” Def.'s Mem., d/e 214, at 4 ¶ 17. Ms. Farris was assigned to Logan's health-care unit pending a psychiatric evaluation.
On December 31, 2015, Ms. Farris was evaluated by Dr. Jose Mathews, a Wexford psychiatrist. According to Dr. Mathews, Ms. Farris reported that she had been diagnosed with and treated for an anxiety disorder before her incarceration. Dr. Mathews noted that Ms. Farris previously had been prescribed at least fifteen different
psychotropic medications, including the antidepressants Prozac and Wellbutrin and the anti-anxiety...
To continue reading
Request your trial