Andre Lee Hilliard v. CTOS Carlos Mariscal, CTO Timothy Hines, CTO Arnold Coates, CTOS Andrew Crews, CTO Amanda Freeman, CTOS Corey Walker, LSW Lindsay Leadinghouse, N.P. Oladimeji Kassim, IDOC, Latoya Hughes

Summary

This is a memorandum opinion and order from a federal district court addressing summary judgment motions in a civil rights case brought by an incarcerated individual. The plaintiff sued prison mental health professionals and correctional officers, alleging deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs under the Eighth Amendment and disability discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The court granted summary judgment for the mental health defendants and partially granted and denied summary judgment for the correctional defendants.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper for Leadinghouse and Kassim because the record did not show that either consciously disregarded a substantial risk to Hilliard's safety. Their responses, including assessment, notification of staff, crisis monitoring, property restrictions, and restraints, were efforts to protect Hilliard rather than deliberate indifference.
2. Summary judgment was denied as to Mariscal because Hilliard's testimony that Mariscal told him to kill himself and placed a television remote in his crisis cell created a genuine dispute of material fact from which a jury could find deliberate indifference.
3. Summary judgment was proper for Coates and Crews because the evidence showed, at most, negligence or gross negligence in failing to remove all remote fragments, which does not satisfy the Eighth Amendment's deliberate-indifference standard; they also responded by notifying a superior and escorting Hilliard to medical care.
4. Summary judgment was proper for Freeman, Hines, and Walker because the evidence did not support that they placed contraband in Hilliard's food or knowingly disregarded a substantial risk, and any failure to detect the object would amount at most to gross negligence.
5. Summary judgment was proper for IDOC and Hughes because, although Hilliard qualified as an individual with a disability, he presented no evidence that he was denied services, programs, or activities or otherwise discriminated against because of his disability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Wexford mental-health defendants were deliberately indifferent to Hilliard's serious mental-health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Carlos Mariscal acted with deliberate indifference by telling Hilliard to kill himself and placing a television remote in his crisis cell.
3. Whether correctional officers Coates, Crews, Freeman, Hines, and Walker were deliberately indifferent to risks of self-harm or contraband.
4. Whether IDOC and Director Hughes discriminated against Hilliard on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Disposition

other