Hubert Putney v. Curtis Parsons, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed a pro se civil detainee's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court allowed excessive-force and Illinois intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims to proceed against the named defendants, while dismissing the inadequate-medical-care and class-of-one equal-protection theories. The order directed service and provided case-management instructions.

Holdings

1. The complaint stated a claim for excessive use of force against Parsons, Chenoweth, Downs, Kerr, Cleavinger, Hendricks, the Doe defendants, and Posey.
2. The complaint did not state a constitutional claim for inadequate medical care based solely on security staff transporting Putney to the hospital instead of using an ambulance.
3. The court excluded the class-of-one equal-protection theory because the Fourteenth Amendment excessive-use-of-force provision was the more appropriate constitutional cause of action.
4. The complaint adequately stated an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim under Illinois law against each named defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-use-of-force claim against the named defendants.
2. Whether the allegations concerning transportation to a hospital stated a constitutionally inadequate-medical-care claim.
3. Whether the plaintiff could proceed on a class-of-one equal-protection theory when the alleged conduct was more directly addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force provision.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an Illinois intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against the named defendants.

Disposition

other