Opinion
01-C-5516
February 13, 2003
Defendants have moved for dismissal of Counts I and II of plaintiff's second amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 4, 2001, Plaintiff David Brown, a resident at the Illinois Department of Human Services Sexually Violent Persons Treatment and Detention Facility ("DHS Facility") in Joliet, Illinois was physically beaten in an altercation with a fellow resident named "G.B." who is of African-American descent. At the time of the altercation and beating, G.B. and plaintiff had been left unsupervised in the DHS facility's dayroom.
Plaintiff's claims allege violations of Due Process and Equal Protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to provide safe conditions of confinement while at the DHS Facility. Under the Due Process Clause, the standard with respect to the right to safe conditions of confinement is whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards plaintiff by ignoring a known and substantial risk to his safety. Butera v. Cottey, 285 F.3d 601, 605 (7th Cir. 2002). The court sympathizes with plaintiff and recognizes that no DHS Facility resident should ever have to endure the physical abuse of another fellow resident. However, plaintiff has made no showing other than claims limited to mere information and belief that defendants knew or had knowledge of a substantial risk or pattern in which G.B. attacked Caucasians without provocation. Moreover, plaintiff has made no showing that defendants personally devised a deliberately indifferent policy that caused a constitutional injury. Absent further information, plaintiff has failed to show that G.B.'s prior behavior put defendants on notice that plaintiff was at risk of attack.
Plaintiff has similarly failed to allege sufficient grounds for an equal protection violation. None of plaintiff's allegations show defendants intentionally treated plaintiff differently from similarly situated African-American residents at the DHS Facility. Moreover, plaintiff's disparate treatment claim cannot merely rest upon conclusory statements absent some factual allegations. Jakson v. E.J. Brach Corp., 176 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 1999).
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.