Paine v. Berglind
| Decision Date | 28 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 06 C 3173 |
| Parties | KATHLEEN PAINE, as Guardian of the Estate of CHRISTINA ROSE EILMAN, a Disabled Person, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT DAVID BERGLIND, DETENTION AIDE SHARON STOKES, OFFICER TERESA WILLIAMS, DETENTION AIDE CYNTHIA HUDSON, DETENTION AIDE CATONIA QUINN, OFFICER PAMELA SMITH, and CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kathleen Paine ("Paine"), as Guardian of the Estate of Christina Rose Eilman ("Eilman"), filed this suit against various members of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago, alleging civil rights violations in connection with Eilman's arrest and subsequent release from the Second District women's lockup without providing her access to mental health treatment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1, Defendant City of Chicago (the "City") has renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment on Count XXXIX of Paine's Third Amended Complaint, which brings a claim against the City pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Defendants David Berglind, Sharon Stokes, Teresa Williams, Cynthia Hudson, Catonia Quinn and Pamela Smith (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") have, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1, renewedtheir combined Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts XV, XVIII, XX, XXII, XXIV, and XXVIII, which collectively allege that the Individual Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to provide medical care to Eilman while she was in police custody.1 Paine has filed a Motion to Strike the City's and the Individual Defendants' renewed Motions for Summary Judgment. Finally, Defendant Pamela Smith ("Officer Smith") filed a Motion for an Order Barring Plaintiff from Pursuing an "Augmented Danger" Claim Against Her at Trial. For the reasons set forth below, all the motions are denied.
This case, now six-years old, raises the issue of whether the Chicago Police Department, and certain of its officers, violated a young, mentally ill woman's constitutional rights when they failed to provide her with mental health treatment while she was in their custody; released her in a dangerous part of the city without her wallet or cellular telephone; after which she was raped and fell from a seventh-story window in a housing project nearby. Ms. Eilman suffers from permanent brain damage as a result of the fall. The specific facts of this case were previously described in copious detail in the Court's February 22, 2010 opinion and its February 26, 2010 opinion and are incorporated herein by reference. However, the facts that are relevant to the instant motions are set forth below.
In its February 22, 2010 opinion, this Court denied all of the Individual Defendants' motions for summary judgment. See Paine v. Johson, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1087-88 (N.D. Ill. 2010). TheCourt found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants violated the Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights: (1) to receive care for her medical condition while in the custody of the police; and (2) to not have a state actor, without justification, increase her risk of harm. Id. In its February 26, 2010 Opinion, the Court denied the City's original Motion for Summary Judgment on Paine's ADA claim because it found that material issues of disputed fact existed as to whether Paine can prevail on this claim. See Paine v. Johnson, No. 06 C 3173, 2010 WL 785397 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2010).
After this Court issued those opinions, ten of the thirteen individual defendants filed an interlocutory appeal in the Seventh Circuit on the question of whether they are protected from this suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Paine v. Cason, 678 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2012). On April 26, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further fact-finding to determine whether two defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 513. The Court's decision to deny summary judgment to the City on Paine's ADA claim was not appealed to the Seventh Circuit. After the remand, the Court set this case for a jury trial to begin on January 14, 2013.
Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit's and this Court's direction, the parties filed additional motions for summary judgment regarding whether Defendants Carson Earnest and Pauline Heard were entitled to qualified immunity. After considering the parties' briefs, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of those two defendants on October 11, 2012. See Paine v. Johnson, No. 06 C 3173, 2012 WL 4852540 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012).
On November 9, 2012, the Defendants filed a flurry of motions. Despite the fact the Court previously denied the City's Motion for Summary Judgment on Paine's ADA claim on February 26,2010, the City re-raises its motion now. (Doc. 829.) In addition, the Individual Defendants moved for summary judgment, again, on claims that they failed to provide medical care to Eilman while she was in custody. (Doc. 831.) Finally, Defendant Pamela Smith moved to bar Paine from pursuing an "augmented danger" claim against her at trial. (Doc. 833.)
In February of 2005, Christina Eilman suffered from her first known manic episode. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 45.)2 During this episode, she was involuntarily committed to Sierra Vista Hospital, a mental health facility, because she was deemed a threat to herself or others. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 10.) Eilman was subsequently diagnosed with bipolar disorder. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 1.) Bipolar disorder is a severe mental illness and more than 90% of bipolar individuals who suffer one manic episode have subsequent episodes. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 1.) Manic episodes are characterized by exhibition of traits such as inflated self-esteem, decreased need for sleep, rapid or pressured speech, increased activity and distractability, and excessive involvement in activities that have a high risk of negative consequences. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 3.)
From at least November of 2005 until May 16, 2006, there is no documented evidence showing that Eilman received treatment or prescriptions for any mental health conditions. (Pl. 56.1Resp. ¶ 14.) Individuals with bipolar disorder may be prescribed medications to help control their symptoms and to help prevent new manic and depressive episodes. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 15, 16.)
From April 2005 through May 2006, Eilman was employed by 24 Hour Fitness. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 18.) In September 2005, after being accepted as a student at UCLA, she moved to Los Angeles where she rented a room. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 21, 22.) In the fall of 2005, Eilman enrolled in three classes at UCLA, finishing the semester with a C- average. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 26.)
In March and April of 2006, Eilman began exhibiting changes in her behavior. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 46.) On May 3, 2006, Eilman met with Kyle McJunkin ("McJunkin"), an academic advisor at UCLA, in order to retroactively withdraw from the Winter 2006 term. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 42.) McJunkin did not refer Eilman to the student psychiatric center or the student counseling center. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 42.)
On May 5, 2006, Eilman flew to Chicago, Illinois. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 43.) On May 6th and May 7th, Eilman spent time at Midway Airport. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 44.) While at Midway, her behavior was erratic and impulsive, including screaming at a quiet baby, yelling at a blind man claiming that he was a phony, and throwing her boot at airline personnel. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 20.) She was arrested by the Chicago police on May 7th, held until the following day, and released. (Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 48-50.) During her time in detention, eyewitnesses observed at various times that Eilman was excitable and yelling profanities; kicking, banging, and pounding the cell walls and bars; and dancing around, twirling in circles, and flapping her arms. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 19.) Witnesses to Eilman's behavior also observed that her mood would change from jovial and pleasant to angry, abusive, and profane. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 21.) During her detention, Eilman smeared her menstrualblood on her cell bench and walls, after which more than one of her cellmates requested a transfer to another cell. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 28.)
Officer Yvonne Delia ("Delia") reported to at least two other officers that, according to Eilman's father, Eilman had not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder but could be bipolar. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 33.) Paine, Eilman's mother, told a CPD officer during a phone call on the evening of May 7th, and again on the afternoon of May 8th, that Eilman had bipolar disorder. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶¶ 34, 35.) In both conversations Paine stated that Eilman could be having a bipolar episode. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶¶ 34, 35.) The City concedes that it had notice that Eilman had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. (City ADA 56.1 ¶ 2.)
Officers at the facilities where Eilman was detained testified that she was uncooperative, irrational, and refused to answer questions. (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 24.) Numerous officers and detention aides described Eilman's behavior as "crazy," "nutty," or "erratic." (Def. 56.1 Reply ¶ 36.) However, they never reported Eilman's behavior to a desk sergeant or watch commander. (Pl. Add. 56. 1 ¶¶ 199, 209-10, 318, 323.) Instead, the lockup personnel harangued Eilman by telling her to: (1) "shut the fuck up"; (2) "shut the hell up, white bitch, you got the blood - you got the blood all over the cell"; (3) ; (4) "you crazy white bitch, you nasty bitch, get that nasty shit off my walls"; and (5) "shut your ass up and go to sleep." (Pl. Add. 56.1 ¶¶ 266, 273, 275-76, 289, 329, 346, 359.)
Dr. Craig J. Nelson, an expert psychologist, opined that...
To continue reading
Request your trial