SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, pursues claims arising from alleged assaults by his former cellmate and alleged retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting the assaults. All Defendants have been served and have appeared through counsel. Accordingly, the status conference set for July 2, 2012 will be cancelled in lieu of this order, which rules on Defendants' motions to dismiss and sets scheduling deadlines.
Federal notice pleading requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give "`fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"
The Court recounts only those allegations necessary to resolve the pending motions to dismiss.
In or around April, 2011, Plaintiff began serving a one-year sentence for parole violations. He was housed at the Pittsfield Work Camp at Jacksonville Correctional Center, a minimum security prison where he understood he would be spending his entire sentence. However, the next month he was transferred to Logan Correctional Center, a medium security prison, due to an alleged minor disciplinary charge.
At Logan Correctional Center, Plaintiff was placed in a wing "reserved for gang-affiliated inmates with disciplinary problems, and known to be the most dangerous area in the entire prison." (Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 25). Plaintiff's young age, Caucasian race, slight size, lack of gang affiliation, relative lack of criminal history, and inexperience with the prison setting allegedly made him a prime target for assault by other inmates. Despite Plaintiff's obvious and known vulnerability, he was assigned to a cell with "an imposing 185-pound violent offender and known Gangster Disciple affiliate, who was serving a twenty-year sentence for armed and aggravated battery and had a history of instituting fights within the prison." (Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 25).
On or about August 3 and 4, 2011, Plaintiff's cellmate beat and raped Plaintiff multiple times. The cellmate attempted to rape Plaintiff again on August 5, 2011, but Plaintiff was able to run away and report the assaults to officers. (Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 28).
Plaintiff's report of the assaults allegedly set off a concerted effort by Defendants to retaliate against Plaintiff and to conceal the assaults. The alleged retaliation and cover-up included intimidating Plaintiff into recanting, accusing and punishing Plaintiff for purportedly lying about the assault, refusing to allow Plaintiff to take a polygraph, and relying on false and unreliable polygraph results.
Defendant Dr. Obaisi conducted a medical examination on Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's report of the assaults. Dr. Obaisi allegedly:
(Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 31).
Plaintiff filed this case in February, 2012, pursuing six claims. The first four claims are federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: failure to protect; retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights; civil conspiracy; and, failure to intervene. The other two claims are state law claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress and state law civil conspiracy.
Defendants Godinez, Dawson, Jennings, Call, Standley, Fishel, Bender, and Simmons (the "IDOC Defendants") argue that state sovereign immunity bars the state claims from proceeding against them in any court except the Illinois Court of Claims. They cite 705 ILCS 505/8(d), which, in relevant part, grants the Illinois Court of Claims "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear state tort claims against the State.
Reasonable minds might debate whether Defendants' argument is a jurisdictional one or an affirmative defense subject to waiver, but the debate will not affect the outcome here since Defendants have not waived the argument. Compare
"[S]tate immunity rules apply to . . . state law claims in federal court."
Reciting these standards is easier than applying them. For example, the Seventh Circuit has found that state law claims are effectively against the State in cases involving malicious prosecution, negligent exposure to electrical wires, high speed police pursuits, and restraining an individual during a court hearing pursuant to a judge's order. See, e.g.,
Given the above discussion, the Court believes that this issue should be decided on a more developed record and more thorough briefing. Accordingly, Defendants motion will be denied with leave to renew at the summary judgment stage.
A First Amendment retaliation claim requires an "activity protected by the First Amendment," a "deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future," and, a motive to inflict that deprivation because of the First Amendment activity.
Dr. Obaisi argues that the retaliation claim against him must be dismissed because "nothing in Plaintiff's complaint demonstrates that Plaintiff's reporting of the rape incident was a substantial or motivating factor behind any of Dr. Obaisi's alleged conduct." (d/e 25, p. 5). The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that "[b]y failing to provide Plaintiff with proper medical treatment and submitting a false report to prison authorities, Obaisi facilitated, approved, and promoted the Defendants' scheme to retaliate against Plaintiff and deprive him of his constitutional rights" to report the assaults. (Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 31). In the Court's opinion, these allegations are sufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Dr. Obaisi.
Dr. Obaisi contends that no allegations suggest that he was aware of Plaintiff's report of the assaults, but a plausible inference of knowledge arises based on Dr. Obaisi's purported examination in response to that report. Dr. Obaisi further advances that Plaintiff "does not allege that the [seminal] fluid was still present when Obaisi examined him. . . ." (d/e 25, p. 6). However, Plaintiff specifically alleges that "[d]espite the fact that Plaintiff had been anally raped several times in the previous three days, attacks that left seminal fluid in Plaintiff's rectum, Obaisi reported to prison authorities that he could find `no trauma' or other physical evidence on Plaintiff's body to suggest rape." (Complaint, d/e 1, ¶ 31). These allegations imply that seminal fluid still existed in Plaintiff's rectum at the time of the examination. In any event, the time for arguing inferences is at the summary judgment stage. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Obaisi intentionally and knowingly failed to document existing physical evidence of Plaintiff's rape to help cover up the rape and to retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting the assaults. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)("Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally."). A developed factual record will reveal whether the evidence supports these allegations .
Dr. Obaisi argues that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars Plaintiff's § 1983 civil conspiracy claim against him. "[U]nder the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine a conspiracy cannot exist solely between members of the same entity."
However, Plaintiff correctly points out that Dr. Obaisi works for a different entity than the other Defendants. Dr. Obaisi is employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., not the State of Illinois. Dr. Obaisi cites no legal support for his assertion that he was an "agent" of the Illinois Department of Corrections or that he should be considered part of the same "entity" as the other Defendants for purposes of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The case he cites,
Dr. Obaisi also argues that Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 conspiracy claim. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Obaisi knowingly and intentionally created a false medical report in order to help the other Defendants cover up those assaults and retaliate against Plaintiff for bringing those assaults to light.
Dr. Obaisi argues that the failure to intervene claim is too conclusory, allowing no plausible inference that he knew the other Defendants intended to harm Plaintiff, or that he had a realistic opportunity to prevent that harm. However, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Obaisi intentionally created a false medical report, knowing that the other Defendants would use the report to punish Plaintiff for reporting the assaults. The Court does not know what more needs to be alleged. Dr. Obaisi's realistic opportunity to prevent the harm arguably would have been to inform Defendants that the report was false. Plaintiff may have an uphill battle proving these allegations, but proof is not required at this stage. For the same reasons, a plausible inference of personal responsibility arises against Dr. Obaisi.
Dr. Obaisi argues that the allegations against him do not allow an inference that he engaged in conduct sufficiently "extreme and outrageous" to give rise to a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. He contends that, at most, the allegations permit only an inference of negligence, and that no concrete factual allegations suggest he knew his conduct would inflict severe emotional distress.
Plaintiff alleges more than negligence or gross negligence. He alleges that he was anally and orally raped, and that physical evidence of those rapes existed when he was examined by Dr. Obaisi, including seminal fluid in Plaintiff's rectum. According to Plaintiff, "Dr. Obaisi, the only prison official with the authority and expertise to physically corroborate Mr. Fontano's rape allegations, entered into an agreement with the other defendants to undermine [Plaintiff's] claims." (d/e 26, p. 15). In furtherance of this agreement, Dr. Obaisi allegedly intentionally created a false medical report and intentionally failed to collect physical evidence of the assault. In the Court's opinion, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Dr. Obaisi for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Plaintiff points out, he was at Dr. Obaisi's mercy regarding the physical corroboration of the assaults. See
Dr. Obaisi argues that no factual allegations plausibly suggest an agreement between Dr. Obaisi and the other Defendants to conspire against Plaintiff. He contends that the allegations suggest only that his alleged "faulty" report "fortuitously further[ed] the tortious purpose of another." (d/e 25, p. 12). This argument depends on Dr. Obaisi's knowledge and intent, neither of which can be determined at the notice pleading stage. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Obaisi intentionally fabricated a medical report to undermine Plaintiff's allegations of assaults, with the purpose of assisting Defendants with a scheme to cover up the assaults and retaliate against Plaintiff. Plaintiff may allege knowledge, malice, intent, and other conditions of the mind generally. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Whether Plaintiff will have evidence to prove these allegations is another matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Dr. Obaisi's motion to dismiss is denied (d/e 24).
2) The motion to dismiss by Defendants Bender, et al., is denied (d/e 19).
3) The parties' joint, proposed discovery plan is adopted (d/e 27), except that the proposed trial date does not give the Court enough time to rule on dispositive motions. The final pretrial conference is set for January 7, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. by personal appearance of counsel. The proposed, agreed final pretrial order is due December 21, 2013. The jury selection and trial are scheduled on the Court's trailing trial calendar for February 5, 2014. The actual date for jury selection and trial will be determined at the final pretrial conference.
4) The status conference scheduled for July 2, 2012 is cancelled as unnecessary.