Wolfe v. Sproul
| Decision Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-01471-SPM |
| Parties | CHARLES WOLFE, #41808-044, Plaintiff, v. DAN SPROUL, ELIZABETH HARBISON, RANDALL PASS, JOSH RICHARDSON, OFFICER SCHNEIDER, OFFICER HUCKLEBERRY, CAPTAIN MOREHEAD, OFFICERS LANCE, OFFICER BRADLEY, JEREMY DOWNEN, OFFICER WILLIAMS, LT. C. BROOKS, E. KELLER, and MRS. DAUN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Charles Wolfe, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently being held at Fort Worth Federal Medical Center, commenced this action on November 22, 2021 by filing a document titled “Notice of Intent to File Civil Rights Action Claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.” (Doc. 1). The Court struck the document finding that Plaintiff had not filed an operative complaint in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 8. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff was granted leave to file a valid complaint by October 5, 2022. Plaintiff then sought four extensions, which were granted, and he filed a complaint on January 17, 2023. (Doc. 28).[1]
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court must also consider whether any claims are improperly joined and subject to severance or dismissal. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F. 4th 1094, 1108 (7th Cir. 2022) ().
In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois (“USP Marion”). (Doc. 28). He has named fourteen individuals as defendants and organizes his Complaint into ten separate claims.
In claim one, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Sproul Harbison, Pass, and Richardson acted with deliberate indifference to his acute pain and chronic illnesses from June 11, 2021, through October 4, 2022.[2](Doc. 28, p. 9-10). He was not provided medically necessary tests, treatments, and surgical procedures due to staff shortages and financial constraints. Plaintiff asserts Sproul refused to provide him colostomy pouches and to allow his family members to provide him colostomy medical supplies. Additionally, Sproul, Harbison, Pass, and Richardson refused to place a medical hold in his record in retaliation for his attempts to obtain necessary healthcare, which resulted in an involuntary transfer from USP Marion on October 4, 2022. The transfer to a new facility left several medically necessary healthcare issues unresolved.
Claim two is brought against Defendant Sproul. (Doc. 28, p. 11). Plaintiff complains that from June 11, 2021, through August 9, 2022, he was held in unconstitutional conditions. He states that in June 2021 he was housed with a cellmate in a cell designed to hold only one person with a single bed. At the time, the heat index exceeded one hundred degrees and the cell had poor ventilation. From June 28, 2021, through August 9, 2022, the roof was “porous” jeopardizing the health, safety, and security of the inmates. Plaintiff asserts he was forced to live with “raccoons, skunks, bobcats, and undomesticated felines” that roamed the walkways, recreation areas, living quarters, and food service areas.
Claim three is asserted against Defendants Sproul, Harbison, Pass, and Richardson. (Doc. 28, p. 11). Plaintiff states that he was placed in “the hole” in November 2021 for twenty days in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to receive medical care through the grievance process. The conditions were not conducive for him to care for himself and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Claim four is brought against Defendants Schneider and Huckleberry. (Doc. 28, p. 12). Plaintiff asserts that his approved contacts were purged, and so he was prohibited from communicating with family, friends, and attorneys for weeks. When he and a correctional counselor sought the approval of his contacts, “SIS refused to approve” the names submitted. On March 16, 2022, he was also blocked from communicating with Senator Tammy Duckworth.
Plaintiff states this conduct was cruel and unusual punishment, was performed in retaliation, and violated his right to free speech.
Claim five is brought against Defendants Sproul and Morehead. (Doc. 28, p. 12-13). Plaintiff claims that on June 13, 2022, he was placed in excessive restraints, which caused increased pain and suffering, additional damage to a compromised knee, and exacerbated his gastrointestinal medical issues. On August 2, 2022, he was placed in “the hole” for a day prior to a medical appointment on August 3. He was then placed in full restrains for transportation. Plaintiff states that these actions were retaliatory and exacerbated known chronic care medical complexities.
Claim six is brought against Defendants Lance, Bradley, Downen, and Sproul. (Doc. 28, p.13). Plaintiff claims that in retaliation for filing grievances, these Defendants collaborated and falsely accused him of possessing a cell phone. Their conduct was “designed to justify a transfer.” Claim Seven
Plaintiff asserts that on August 10, 2022, Defendants Williams, Schneider, and Huckleberry confiscated his legal property to deny him access to the courts. (Doc. 28, p. 13). The Defendants acted in retaliation to prevent him from pursuing a civil rights action and other “legal efforts.”
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Sproul and Daun acted with deliberate indifference and in violation of the First Step Act by referring him for a transfer to the “FTC-OKC work cadre program in Oklahoma City, OK, over 500 miles from [his] home in retaliation.” (Doc. 28, p. 13). He was first scheduled to transfer on September 22, 2022. The air marshals, however, denied custody at the airport due to his unstable medical condition, and Plaintiff was returned to USP Marion the same day. Knowing that the air marshals advised that the transfer was “not aligned with [his] medical history,” Sproul and Daun still had him transferred. On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff was transferred to FTC-OKC, a facility unable to provide for his medical needs.
Plaintiff claims that on August 9, 2022, Defendant Brooks took custody of his property, which included a gray mesh gym bag, legal portfolio, stamps, a thesaurus, an identification card holder, clothing, and a knee brace. (Doc. 28, p. 14). On November 18 and December 19, 2022, Plaintiff received his knee brace, but all other property items were not returned to him. Plaintiff asserts that the confiscation of his property was done in retaliation and designed to deny him access to the courts and deny his Eighth Amendment rights.
Claim ten is brought against Defendant Keller, a disciplinary hearing official, for violation of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 28, p. 14). Plaintiff states that Keller refused his request for a continuance of his disciplinary hearing and to call staff witnesses. Keller also did not allow him to present his complete defense and did not conduct a full investigation. Finally, Keller delayed issuing the “DHO report” for sixty days, “well beyond the 10 day normal time frame.”
Plaintiff asserts allegations against Lieutenant Hendricksen in claim three, but he has not named this individual as a defendant. To be treated as a defendant in a case, the individual must be listed in the case caption as a party. Accordingly, any claims against Hendricksen are dismissed without prejudice. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005).
The Court further notes that in Plaintiff's Claim Ten, he states that his procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by Defendant Keller. (Doc. 28, p. 14). “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States, as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States, from depriving any person of property without ‘due process of law.'” Dusenbery v. U.S., 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002). As it is the Fifth, not the Fourteenth Amendment, which supplies the guarantee of due process to federal inmates, Plaintiff's claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff also asserts in Plaintiff's Claims Four, Nine, and Ten that confiscation of his personal property and prohibiting him from communicating with individuals outside USP Marion amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 28, p. 12, 13). These assertions are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Prison conditions that deprive an inmate of basic human needs for food, medical care, sanitation, or physical safety have been held to violate the Eighth Amendment. See Rhodes v Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); James v. Milwaukee Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992). The allegations of loss of personal property and restrictions on outside communication, however, do not amount to a “serious deprivation” required for a constitutional claim. Therefore, these allegations are dismissed without prejudice. See Smadi v. Garland, 2023 WL 2743586, at * (S.D. Ill. March 31, 2023) (“the Court is unaware of any authority holding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial