Taylor v. Jackie
1:24-cv-01370
C.D. Ill.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Kennado K. Taylor, an inmate at McLean County Detention Facility, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Taylor sought to proceed in forma pauperis but had previously accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), limiting his ability to file suits without prepayment of fees unless facing imminent danger.
- A prior order from the Seventh Circuit restricts Taylor's filings, except in criminal cases, cases challenging his confinement, or those alleging imminent danger.
- Taylor alleged jail officials refused to transfer him for mental health treatment, claiming this put him at risk of suicide and that officials were trying to kill him.
- Taylor also sued the Illinois Department of Human Services, but a prior identical case was dismissed with an opportunity to amend and include all claims there.
- The court reviewed and dismissed this case, finding no imminent danger and deeming the claims duplicative or non-cognizable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis despite three strikes | Taylor faces imminent danger due to risk of suicide without treatment | Plaintiff has not shown imminent danger; prior strikes apply | Denied in forma pauperis; no imminent danger shown |
| Viability of § 1983 claims against Illinois Department of Human Services | Sued IDHS for failure to provide mental health treatment | State agencies aren't 'persons' under § 1983 | Claims against IDHS dismissed |
| Duplicative litigation | New claims not already presented in prior case | Plaintiff already litigating same issues in another case | Remaining claims dismissed as duplicative |
| Request for court-appointed counsel | Taylor requested counsel | Plaintiff failed to show attempts to obtain counsel independently | Request for counsel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (State agencies are not considered "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and thus can't be sued for damages.)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (Sets standard for when a court should appoint counsel for indigent plaintiffs.)
- Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667 (Clarifies requirements for plaintiff to show efforts to obtain counsel before appointment by court.)