Hughes v. Farris
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21169
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Michael Hughes is civilly committed at Rushville as a sexually violent person under Illinois law and received vocational treatment in the facility laundry.
- Laundry supervisor Michael Farris allegedly subjected Hughes to repeated homophobic verbal abuse and encouraged other residents to sexually assault him, causing fear for his safety.
- When Hughes refused an order that would violate facility rules and later complained, rehabilitation director Krista Wilcoxen allegedly suspended him from vocational training for three months, hindering treatment required for conditional release.
- Hughes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection) and First Amendment retaliation claims; the district court conducted a telephonic merit-review hearing and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, counting it as a PLRA strike.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed the complaint’s allegations as pleaded, concluded Hughes had stated viable due process, equal protection, and retaliation claims against both defendants, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process — protection from abusive treatment by staff | Hughes: verbal harassment and threats of sexual violence by Farris constitute cruel and inhumane treatment violating Fourteenth Amendment | Defendants: alleged verbal abuse and suspension do not rise to a constitutional violation | Court: Allegations suffice to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Farris (analogous to Eighth Amendment standards for prisoners) |
| Equal Protection — discrimination/sexual harassment based on sexual orientation | Hughes: targeted verbal abuse and disparate treatment were motivated by anti-gay bias | Defendants: no equal protection violation shown | Court: Allegations plausibly state equal protection claims for sexual-orientation discrimination and sexual-harassment by state actor |
| Retaliation / First Amendment — punishment for complaining about abuse | Hughes: Wilcoxen suspended his vocational treatment in retaliation for reporting Farris | Defendants: suspension was lawful and not retaliatory | Court: Allegations of retaliatory suspension sufficiently plead an equal protection and First Amendment retaliation claim against Wilcoxen |
| Procedural — dismissal at merit-review and PLRA strike | Hughes: hearing rushed; he could have clarified claims if allowed to amend; dismissal incorrectly labeled a strike | District court: dismissed for failure to state a claim and counted as a strike | Court: District court erred in dismissal; case vacated and remanded; the PLRA strike must be removed (no strike should be recorded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2015) (verbal abuse by guards can amount to cruel and unusual punishment and increase risk of sexual assault)
- Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008) (civilly committed detainees entitled to protections at least as extensive as prisoners under Eighth Amendment)
- Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2015) (equal protection claim for sexual harassment by a state actor)
- Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation)
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012) (retaliation claims for complaining about abuse implicate First Amendment protections)
- Lane v. Williams, 689 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2012) (civilly committed persons must receive some treatment determined by mental health professionals; substantial departures can violate due process)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (standard for professional judgment in treatment of civilly committed individuals)
- Henderson v. Wilcoxen, 802 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2015) (limitations and proper scope of merit-review hearings)