Wade v. Haida
| Decision Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Parties | ADRIAN BUFORD WADE, # 12681, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HAIDA, MEARL JUSTUS, RICHARD WATSON, PHILLIP McLAURIN, JANA RUETER, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, A. LEFLORE, BRENDAN KELLY, SGT. STRUBBERG, KENNETH CLAYTON, THOMAS TRICE, MIKE RIPPERDA, DR. SHAW, JOHN J. O'GARA, and THOMAS JOSEPH PHILO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff, who is currently a pretrial detainee in the St. Clair County Jail ("the Jail"), has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his complaint on July 29, 2013. Later, on August 6, 2013, he submitted a letter and several other documents (Doc. 4), which the Court has construed as a motion to amend complaint. That motion shall be addressed below.
Several of Plaintiff's allegations date back as far as 1991, when he was convicted in St. Clair County of attempted sexual assault and received two years' probation. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Haida (then the St. Clair County State's Attorney, and now a Circuit Court Judge) improperly filed the charge to reflect that a completed assault occurred, when it did not.Defendant Haida then lied to the Illinois State Police in 1997, falsely indicating that Plaintiff had "three or four" sex offense convictions between 1991 and 1997 in St. Clair County (Doc. 1, p. 6). This action caused Plaintiff to be required to register as a sex offender. Further, because of Defendant Haida's actions, the false statement that Plaintiff had been convicted of multiple sex offenses was published in the Belleville News-Democrat in 2007, along with Plaintiff's photograph and the fact he was wanted for failure to register (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff was subsequently prosecuted in 2008 for failure to register, but was acquitted after a jury trial. While that case was pending, Plaintiff was held in the Jail from June 2007 to November 2008 (Doc. 1, p. 7). During that detention, he was assaulted1 by Defendant Clayton (corrections officer), who also falsely told other inmates that Plaintiff was in jail for raping babies, thus endangering Plaintiff's safety.
Plaintiff's medical needs were neglected by Defendant McLaurin (jail superintendent). Plaintiff suffered a severe injury while in the jail (he does not give any details on the nature of this injury) (Doc. 1, p. 8). Defendant McLaurin took away Plaintiff's wheelchair on several occasions, forcing Plaintiff to crawl on the floor to get around (Doc. 1, p. 8). He wrote letters complaining about the mistreatment to Defendants Justus (then-St. Clair County Sheriff, now deceased) and McLaurin, as well as to two St. Clair County Judges, to no avail.
Plaintiff was released from the Jail on November 4, 2008. Soon after, he was diagnosed with sciatica, "D.J.D.,"2 and rheumatoid arthritis (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Plaintiff was arrested and detained two more times on St. Clair County warrants for failure to register as a sex offender, while Defendant Haida was the State's Attorney. Plaintiffwas held in the St. Louis City Justice Center from November 28, 2010, for 40 days until January 9, 2011, when the charge was dropped. He was arrested again on June 11, 2011, and was held for 136 days in the St. Clair County Jail until October 24, 2011, when the charge was again dismissed.
During Plaintiff's 2011 stay in the Jail, Defendant Clayton again falsely told other inmates that Plaintiff was a sex offender who liked babies (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff received death threats, and requested Defendant McLaurin to move him, but he was refused. On August 2, 2011, another inmate attacked Plaintiff; only then was he placed in protective custody. Plaintiff was given a walker, but no wheelchair. He was in excruciating pain, but neither Defendant Rueter (administrative nurse) nor Defendant McLaurin would help him. Plaintiff's complaints to Defendant Justus were ignored (Doc. 10).
After Plaintiff's release in October 2011, medical tests showed he had serious problems with his cervical spine and lumbar vertebrae, severe osteoarthritis, and needed a knee replacement as well as other joints replaced (Doc. 1, p. 10).
Once again, Plaintiff was arrested for failure to register as a sex offender, and returned to the Jail on April 13, 2012 (Doc. 1, p. 11). He has remained in detention there since that time. He was verbally abused by staff, not allowed to bathe for three weeks, and given only Tylenol for his pain. Defendant Shaw ignored Plaintiff's medical problems, telling him he needed to lose weight, and refused to give him any treatment. Defendant Leflore (corrections officer) refused to feed Plaintiff on August 12, 2012; on other occasions he served Plaintiff food containing spit and hair, and he continually cursed and verbally harassed Plaintiff (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff's many complaints about this conduct were ignored.3 In addition, Plaintiff's legal mail has been openedand his personal letters to family were not delivered.
Defendant McLaurin has continued to deny Plaintiff the use of a wheelchair. On April 27, 2012, Defendant McLaurin made Plaintiff sit, scoot, and crawl on the floor to get from the basement to the upstairs visiting room, (Doc. 1, pp. 13-14). On June 16, 2013, Plaintiff fell very hard to the floor, and was placed on 72-hour bedrest. He is in constant pain from his arthritis, particularly in his back and knees (Doc. 1, p. 19). His cell has no hot water, and he is not allowed to bathe often enough. He had only two baths over the ten-day period leading up to July 8, 2013 (Doc. 1, p. 14).
Plaintiff asked Defendant Philo (his public defender) to help him get relocated or released. At Plaintiff's July 2, 2013, state court appearance, Defendant Haida (now the judge presiding over Plaintiff's case) told Plaintiff there is nothing he can do about the jail conditions. The next day, Defendant McLaurin told Plaintiff he had talked to Defendant Philo, but there was no bed in the infirmary for Plaintiff (Doc. 1, p. 15).
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for these alleged violations of his rights (Doc. 1, p. 19).
In this document, Plaintiff states that he may not have properly signed and dated the complaint. However, he did in fact sign it. He goes on to state that he should have listed St. Clair County as a Defendant, and that he believes some of the named Defendants (Haida, Philo, and O'Gara) may be "exempt" from suit (Doc. 4, p. 1). He also includes seven additional pages of exhibits (Doc. 4, pp. 2-8).
While a litigant may amend his complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff has not tendered an amended complaint. Rather, it appears that he is requesting the Clerk to make piecemealchanges to the original complaint by adding a party, and possibly dismissing others. The Court will not accept such piecemeal amendments. An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). As such, an amended complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any prior pleading.
Plaintiff's letter, construed as a motion for leave to amend (Doc. 4), does not set forth all claims against all defendants in a single document, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Accordingly, the motion (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will proceed to review the original complaint, as required under § 1915A.
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint, and to dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into several counts as enumerated below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
Count 1: Claims against Defendant Haida for malicious prosecution, including the 1991 conviction, the placement of Plaintiff on the sex offender registration list, and the 2007 failure-to-register charge of which Plaintiff was acquitted; and against Defendants Kelly and Watson for the current "malicious prosecution" of another failure-to-register charge;
Count 2: Claim against Defendant Haida for wrongful imprisonment, for twice (in 2010 and 2011) having Plaintiff arrested on failure-to-register charges that were later dismissed; Count 3: Claim against Defendant Haida for defamation, for the 2007 publication of false information on Plaintiff's criminal history;
Count 4: Claim against Defendant McLaurin for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, for depriving Plaintiff of his wheelchair and ignoring Plaintiff's complaints that he needed medical attention for severe pain (encompassing Plaintiff's detention in 2007-08, 2011, and 2012-present);
Count 5: Claims against Defendants Reuter (during 2011 detention) and Shaw (during detention from 2012-present) for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, for refusing to treat Plaintiff for severe pain;
Count 6: Claim against Defendant McLaurin for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for depriving Plaintiff of his wheelchair (encompassing Plaintiff's detention in 2007-08, 2011, and 2012-present);
Count 7: Claims against Defendant McLaurin for failure to protect Plaintiff from the August 2, 2011, attack by a fellow inmate, and against Defendant Clayton for inciting the assault by spreading false information to fellow inmates about Plaintiff being a child molester;
Count 8: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial