Prince Brown v. State of Illinois

OPINION

LIPINSKI, J. [*215]

This Claim comes before the court upon a recommendation from Commissioner Robert H. Rath following an evidentiary hearing that took place on September 18, 2001.

The Claim arises from an incident that is alleged to have occurred on July 7, 1999. The Complaint was filed on June 8, 2000 and the allegations were that the pro se Claimant, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, was not afforded the required degree of safety and/or medical care pursuant to 705 ILCS 505/8 (d). An Amended Complaint was filed on September 11, 2000. This amendment adding a panoply of new charges, all under the theory that Claimant was mishandled and physically abused by several guards.

Facts

The evidentiary hearing took place before Commissioner Robert H. Rath on September 18, 2001. Testimony was taken from the following: Claimant; Lieutenant Oscar Coutee; Correctional Officer Jackson; Correctional Officer Evans.

Claimant Brown testified that on July 7, 1999, while an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, he was engaged in a hunger strike. At about 9:30 a.m. in the morning of July 7, 1999 he was removed from his cell and taken to a holding cell preliminary to being taken for a shower. While in the holding cell, he lost consciousness due to the fact that he had not eaten. At this point Claimant testified that Correctional Officer Evans kicked him in the back, urging Claimant to get up from the floor. When he regained some measure of consciousness, he was being dragged up a flight of stairs. On arrival at the tope of the stairs, Lieutenant Coutee seized the Claimant, dragged him down the hall, and put Claimant in his cell.

As a result of being dragged up the stairs the Claimant complained that he sustained scarring on his arms, scratches on his legs and back pain. He later received a tetanus shot. He never received treatment for the back pain. Commissioner Rath noted on the record that from a distance of about give feet he could discern two scars on the Claimant’s left forearm. These two scars were about four to five inches in length, and formed an almost perfect V shape. Commissioner Rath also viewed Claimant’s left leg and from a distance of six to eight feet noted some discoloration, but no apparent scarring.

Upon cross examination Claimant testified that he was unconscious before he was dragged up the stairs, so he did not recall any interaction with anyone in the holding cell. He did not actually recall being kicked while in the holding area, he was only told this by another inmate. He recalled being “unconscious” as he was let up the stairs and “fainting in and out”. He had no idea how long he was conscious. He saw a nurse about the scratches one time and she washed them with soap and water. He never saw any bruises on his body as a result of the alleged treatment of the guards. He did recall bleeding from the scratches.

Lieutenant Coutee testified that he was on duty on the day in question, and that Claimant was brought downstairs for a shower and was placed in the holding room. Then, a staff member informed him that Claimant had passed out in the holding cell. Lieutenant Coutee testified that the usual procedures were followed in this situation.

[*216] When an inmate says they have a medical problem, the medical staff is called and they determine if anything is wrong with him or if medical attention is required. If the medical staff tells us that the inmate is satisfactory, then the Captain is called. The Captain then decides whether to order the inmate back to his cell or not. In the event that the inmate refuses to comply with an order to walk to his cell, Lieutenant Coutee testified that the use of necessary force is allowed to obtain the inmate’s compliance.

According to Lieutenant Coutee, this is the exact procedure that was followed in the instant case. The medical staff was called to check Claimant. When the medical person said there was nothing wrong with Claimant, they called Captain Agnew. Captain Agnew said that if there was no thing wrong with the Claimant that he should be put back in his cell. Accordingly, the officers elevated Claimant up from the floor. Claimant was able to stand on his own and was fully conscious at that time. When they arrived at the bottom of the stairs, Claimant refused to walk up the stairs. When the Claimant continued to refuse to walk up the stairs, despite several orders to do so, Officer Jackson and Officer Evans took a hold of Claimant’s arms and assisted him up the stairs.

Since Claimant refused to walk, Officer Jackson and Officer Evans held Claimant by his arms and escorted him down to his cell. Claimant was perpendicular to the floor during this procedure and Claimant’s feet, and only his feet, were dragging on the ground. Claimant was also in this same position when the Claimant was escorted down the hallway to the cell. Lieutenant Coutee testified that no one “dragged” the Claimant up the stairs or down the hall. No one kicked the Claimant. When the Claimant was placed in his cell there was no bleeding and no visible injuries.

On cross examination by Claimant Brown, Lieutenant Coutee testified that the guards did not scar Claimant, that the floors are smooth, the stairs are smooth, there were no jagged edges and no protruding wires. In short, there was nothing that would cause scarring. Lieutenant Coutee could not explain why a nurse’s entry dated July 7, 1999 at 9:00 p.m. would note scratches on Claimant’s arm. Lieutenant Coutee was adamant that there were no scratches on the Claimant when they left Claimant in his cell.

Correctional Officer Jackson was also on duty on the day in question and he also testified. C.O. Jackson testified that Claimant was one of the inmates who were scheduled for a shower and that Claimant passed out in the holding cell for the showers. C.O. Jackson was monitoring that holding area and he was to assist Claimant going back to his cell after the medical technician left. C.O. Jackson testified that at no time did they drag the Claimant up the stairs or down the hallway. At times, Claimant’s feet may have touched the stairs and the floor. At no time did C.O. Jackson kick the Claimant nor did he see anyone else kick the Claimant. The Officer noted neither injuries nor bleeding when the Claimant was placed in the cell.

Correctional Officer Evans’ testimony simply confirmed that of Correctional Officer Jackson.

Finally, we note that excerpts of the Claimant’s medical file are part of the record. A report signed by Nurse Mary Garbs on July 7, 1999 at 9:00 p.m. confirms scratches on Claimant’s left forearm in a V shape, approximately four inches in length, as well as several scratches ion his left lower leg. All are described as “superficial scratches”. The scratches were washed with soap and water and a tetanus shot was administered.

[*217] Legal Analysis

Claimant’s Amended Complaint details numerous theories of recovery. Each theory will be addressed separately.

I. Negligence

To prevail on a negligence claim, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent owed him a duty, that it negligently breached that duty, that the Claimant suffered damages and that the Respondent’s negligence was a proximate cause of that damage. Minor v. State (1998), 50 Ill. Ct.Cl. 104, 114. This is the Claimant’s burden of proof. Although it is clear that the Respondent owed Claimant a duty in this case, it does not appear that any activity by the Respondent’s agents were unreasonable under the circumstances. Further, all Correctional Officers involved in the subject incident followed all necessary procedures. Finally, even at face value, Claimant himself claims that he was unconscious during the better part of the incident, renders his account less than credible by his own admissions. This being the case, Claimant has failed to sustain his burden of proof on a negligence theory, and his claim will be denied.

II. Medical Malpractice

Some of the testimony offered by the Claimant implies that he may have received improper medical care. Since this court has held that the failure to provide adequate medical care can amount to a medical malpractice action, this theory of recovery will be addressed even though it was not expressly pled.

To prevail in a medical negligence action, the Claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of care by which Respondent’s conduct is to be measured, Respondent’s deviation from the standard of care, and that Respondent’ deviation was a proximate cause of Claimant’s injury. Allegations of improper medical care must be proven by expert testimony and the Court may not conclude on its own what is or what is not appropriate medical care under the circumstances of the case without the aid of such expert testimony. Tackett v. State, 45 Ill.Ct.Cl. 334 (1993).

In the case at bar, Claimant presented no expert testimony as to the Respondent’s standard of care or the Respondent’s deviation from the standard of care. In short, Claimant has failed to sustain his burden of proof on a medical malpractice theory, and his claims must be denied.

III. Battery

A battery is defined as the unauthorized and willful touching of a person. Amos v. Illinois 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 368 (2003). Obviously, all the Correctional Officers involved were authorized under the penitentiary’s procedures to touch the Claimant if the need were [*218] to arise. The court finds that under the fact pattern presented, no battery of the Claimant occurred.

IV. Miscellaneous

Claimant’s Amended Complaint also presents other theories of recovery under an umbrella of allegedly criminal acts. These include the following: conspiracy; accountability for the conduct of another; the Victim’s Compensation Act; official misconduct; use of excessive force; due process violations; constitutional issues.

The court finds no merit in any of these theories and disapproves of the obvious “shotgun” approach to litigation.

V. Summary Judgment

Finally, the court notes that on November 12, 2002, well after the evidentiary hearing and without leave of court, Claimant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion was late and added nothing of value to the information already available to this Court and will be denied.

WHEREFORE, Claimant’s claim is denied.