Richard Smego v. Shan Jumper
707 F. App'x 411
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard M. Smego is a civilly committed sex offender under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, detained at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility.
- Smego alleged defendants (clinical staff) violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights by providing inadequate mental-health treatment (for paraphilia and PTSD) and by assigning him dangerous cellmates.
- He argued some clinicians lacked required licenses under the 2014 Sex Offender Evaluation and Treatment Provider (SOETP) Act and that staff turnover and lack of group PTSD therapy impaired his treatment.
- On the cellmate claim Smego asserted roommates were known troublemakers and caused him fear; he alleged one minor incident (a pencil dropped on his leg) and that staff sometimes moved him when he complained.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding no reasonable jury could find a Fourteenth Amendment violation on either claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of sex-offender treatment (licensing) | Some clinicians lacked SOETP licenses, so treatment unconstitutional | Most clinicians were licensed (SOETP or other relevant licenses); records show timely licensure | Summary judgment affirmed — record shows defendants qualified; no genuine dispute |
| Treatment disruption from staff turnover | Frequent therapist changes reset progress and delayed treatment | Turnover not shown to have harmed treatment; plaintiff's opinion insufficient | Summary judgment affirmed — mere dissatisfaction/lay opinion insufficient |
| PTSD treatment — failure to provide group therapy | Defendants should have enrolled him in PTSD-specific group therapy | No clinical diagnosis of PTSD by facility staff; no proof group therapy was necessary; plaintiff didn't seek in-house treatment | Summary judgment affirmed — no evidence of constitutionally inadequate care or requisite culpability |
| Assignment of cellmates / failure to protect | Defendants assigned known troublemakers, creating fear of harm | Few incidents; no actual injury; staff moved him when he complained; unclear individual involvement | Summary judgment affirmed — subjective fear without injury and responsive moves negate deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (establishes objective-reasonableness standard for certain pretrial-detainee claims)
- Hughes v. Dimas, 837 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding allegations that treatment providers lacked required licensure can sometimes state a Fourteenth Amendment claim)
- Hughes v. Farris, 809 F.3d 330 (7th Cir. 2015) (discusses Fourteenth Amendment standards for civil detainees’ medical-care claims)
- Smego v. Mitchell, 723 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2013) (prior Smego decision addressing detainee medical-care claims)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (discusses culpability thresholds under substantive due process)