Nolan v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 19 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 11 CV 1565,11 CV 1565 |
| Parties | Matthew Nolan, Plaintiff, v. LINDA THOMAS, Warden, JANET PURDUE, Assistant Warden, JAMES HENRY, Assistant Warden, ANTONIO SALAS, Captain, WILLIAM SCHNAKE, Unit Manager, MICHAEL REUSCH, Lieutenant, WANDA COLLINS, Lieutenant, KIM SHIVERS, Correctional Officer, ROBERT JOHNSON, BOP Staff, MICHAEL NALLEY, BOP Regional Director, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In a Bivens action, Plaintiff Matthew Nolan ("Nolan" or "Plaintiff") alleges constitutional deprivation suffered at the hands of certain officials of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois.1 ,2 Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and, in the alternative, plead the defense of qualified immunity. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the officials are immune from a claim of a denial of procedural due process and that the due process claimrooted in the conditions of confinement is defeated by facts alleged and referenced in public records. A claim alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, however, remains as to Defendants Thomas, Purdue, Henry, Reusch, and Salas.
Plaintiff was detained by federal authorities on or about February 26, 2009 and placed in the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC"). He was held in administrative detention on the basis of an extradition warrant issued by the government of the nation of Costa Rica.
The warrant alleged aggravated kidnaping, murder, and use of a false document. On August 31, 2009, a Magistrate judge determined that no probable cause existed for the kidnaping and murder charges, and therefore denied a petition to extradite on the basis of those charges. The magistrate did grant the request on the basis of the document charge, but the United States ultimately moved to have that charge dismissed. Nolan was eventually released from administrative detention on August 6, 2010.
While detained in the MCC, an indictment issued against Nolan, charging him with four counts of possessing prohibited objects while in federal custody and one count of obstruction of justice. Nolan was denied bail on the charges and, therefore, from October 20, 2009 to July 7, 2010, Nolan's official status was that of a pretrial detainee.
For the duration of Nolan's detention in the MCC, he claims he was placed in solitary confinement. He was allegedly confined in a single windowless cell with a door that was solid save a small window at eye level and a ground-level opening (known as a "chuck-hole") used forhandcuffing and meal delivery. The cell had a steel bench, as well as a toilet and sink. Nolan was kept in this cell twenty-three hours per day and was denied newspapers, magazines, or other ways of keeping track of dates. Guards controlled the lighting. For the one out-of-cell hour Nolan was allegedly permitted, he could bathe or go to another cell, called "the cage," in which he could exercise.
Nolan was allegedly prohibited from interacting with other detainees and was permitted only occasional access to a telephone and email. For the "first several months" of his detention, he did not see anyone beyond his lawyer. In the first six and one-half months, he had only one contact visit with his wife. In Nolan's exact words, "[d]uring the entire seventeen month course of solitary confinement he was not permitted regular contact visits with his wife and virtually no contact visits with his children or others who were not legal counsel."
When moving outside of his cell, Nolan was allegedly subject to a special precaution known as a "three-man hold." This meant that a trio of guards was required to accompany him for every out-of-cell movement.
Plaintiff alleges that solitary confinement can cause "severe psychological harm." Nolan claims he, in fact, did suffer such harm and has thus been diagnosed with mental conditions stemming from his confinement. Nolan claims that his confinement either caused or worsened conditions such as anxiety, depression, attention deficit disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Nolan claims that these harms were exacerbated by the fact that he was not properly monitored for the psychological effects of his solitary confinement, as is allegedly required under Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations.
Nolan also claims that he suffered physical harm. Among other things, Nolan claims to have suffered from a bacterial infection (staphylococcus aureus, or "staph") and obstruction in his ear, a regrowth of a lesion in the middle of his chest, along with skin lesions and assorted skin disorders. Nolan claims that irregular and inadequate medical examinations were the chief cause of his physical ills. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Paul Harvey, the MCC doctor and a non-party here, was inattentive to Nolan. Further Plaintiff alleges that it was "widely known" that Dr. Harvey provided inadequate care.
Nolan also alleges certain miscellaneous harms, including interference with his right to receive mail, interference with his access to a law library, inability to wear his wedding band, and suffering sexually harassing comments. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials were callous in not allowing him to speak with his father, who was terminally ill.
Upon his arrival at the MCC in February, 2009, Plaintiff was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") of the MCC. Writing in response to Plaintiff's request for Administrative Remedy Request on February 2, 2010, Defendant Linda Thomas, the MCC warden, explained that the initial decision was for the purpose of greater security. That determination was based on several factors including, among other things, Plaintiff's having served in a "specialized regiment within the British Army" that taught him "unique military training and skills."
Warden Thomas went on to explain that the extra security measures remained necessary because of later conduct of Plaintiff. As referred to generally in her Administrative Remedy Request and as detailed in Plaintiff's plea agreement, between Plaintiff's arrival on February 26, 2009 and March 11, 2009, Plaintiff made or acquired several items to facilitate an escape from the MCC. For instance, Plaintiff braided thirty-one feet of rope and a climbing harness out of bedding materials supplied by the MCC. Plaintiff concealed those items in a mattress in his cell, along with a metal clip capable of opening handcuffs. He further concealed a razor blade inside a bar of soap.
If there was any doubt as to what these materials were for, on March 7, 2009, Plaintiff detailed in a note to an individual referred to as "Individual B" in the indictment the following: "[m]y thought was tape the window, crack, mount rope w/ rope sleeve and rope bag . . . rappel to street + friends . . . Trigger man runs the op from parking garage." Plaintiff added, referring to the materials he would later acquire: "I do need tools, razors and sheets if you have them." These facts, and others, formed the basis of Plaintiff's pleading guilty to charges of possession of contraband in a federal prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1791(a)(2).
In addition to the prohibited items and escape planning, Plaintiff was communicating to another individual, "Individual A," about destroying certain materials in his home related to the case for which he was originally detained. Specifically, he placed a phone call to Individual A in which Plaintiff and Individual A discussed the contents of a safe. During an FBI search of Plaintiff's home on February 26, 2009, the FBI had been unable to access Plaintiff's personal safe. Individual A relayed to Plaintiff that she had told the FBI that she did not have the combination to the safe and that it had not been used in two years. Plaintiff replied "Good " and"thank God." He then later explained that certain contents of the safe "should go bye-bye." When the FBI returned to the home on March 19, 2009, the FBI searched the safe, and it had been emptied. Based on these facts and others, Plaintiff was indicted and pled guilty to obstruction of justice charges.
Plaintiff sought relief for his confinement conditions, and in particular the "three-man hold" condition, via the Bureau of Prisons grievance process. His request was received on January 5, 2010. As mentioned above, Defendant Warden Thomas denied Plaintiff's request on February 12, 2010. Defendant Michael Nalley, the regional director for the BOP, denied Plaintiff's March 15, 2010 appeal on April 20, 2010.
The specific alleged conduct of each Defendant is as follows:
- Linda Thomas, the warden of the MCC, signed the denial of Nolan's grievance petitions seeking relief from solitary confinement and the three-man hold. Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Thomas knew that Dr. Harvey provided substandard medical care.
- Wanda Collins, a lieutenant, is claimed to have signed the order placing Nolan in administrative detention.
- Kim Shivers, a correctional officer, is claimed to have signed the order placing Nolan in administrative detention.
- Robert Johnson, BOP Staff, allegedly made sexually inappropriate comments to Nolan and tampered with his mail.
- Michael Nalley, BOP Regional Director, signed the denial of Nolan's grievance petitions seeking relief from solitary confinement and the three-man hold.
- Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the remaining Defendants - Janet Purdue, the assistant warden, James Henry, another assistant warden, Antonio Salas, a captain, William Schnake, a unit manager, and Michael Reusch, a lieutenant - are alleged to generally be responsible for the conditions of Nolan's confinement.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a...
To continue reading
Request your trial