Hinman v. Galloway et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JARED WADE HINMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN GALLOWAY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-02646-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion filed by Plaintiff Jared Hinman asking the
Court 	to 	reconsider 	the preliminary 	dismissal 	of 	his claim 	regarding 	failure to 	provide
constitutionally adequate medical care for his back injury and the dismissal of his RLUIPA claim.
(Doc. 14, 21). For the following reasons, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. (Doc. 21).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court may revise any order adjudicating
fewer than all the claims at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and
the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Motions to reconsider an order under Rule 54(b) are
judged largely by the same standards as motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e),
“to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton
Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). “Reconsideration is
not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could
have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole
v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996).
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s alleges that he was kept in his cell for months
Case 3:24-cv-02646-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
and issued disciplinary reports when for religious reasons he repeatedly refused to take a
tuberculosis test. Eventually, in November 2023, Plaintiff asserts that he was given a blood test as
an alternative to the tuberculosis test and was placed back into general population. According to
Plaintiff, in February 2024, he was allowed to attend yard for the first time since being given the
blood test. While at yard, he injured his back while lifting weights. Plaintiff asserts that he waited
months for an x-ray and has “been given little to no treatment since” for his back injury. (Doc. 12,
p. 12). In the First Amended Complaint in his description of Defendant Gentles, the health care
unit administrator, Plaintiff writes, “also refusing care for back.” (Id. at p. 5). The Court ruled in
the Merits Review Order that this singular phrase was not sufficient to state a claim against Gentles
for a constitutional deprivation. (Doc. 14, p. 4-5). Furthermore, because Plaintiff did not associate
his allegations regarding denial or delay of medical care of his back injury against any other
defendant, any claim Plaintiff intended to bring for inadequate care following his back injury was
dismissed. (Id.).
Plaintiff argues in his motion to reconsider that the Court improperly dismissed his claim
regarding inadequate medical care for his back injury. (Doc. 21, p. 2). He asserts that the Court
should reconsider the dismissal of this claim because the inclusion of Defendants “Galloway,
Bradford, Reed, Pind, Horn, Dr. David, Oneal, Rober and Litrell’s collective ministerial neglect
(through Gentle’s professional capacity need be re-entered) should sufficiently satisfy that
Shawnee Correctional Center’s municipal liability for the proximatal cause, as the polices executed
by Galloway et al (including Gentles) was the moving force behind the back injury.” (Id. at p. 2).
He also states that documents that he will later submit will be sufficient to “carry the claim of the
back injury into this proceeding,” but the documents are currently inaccessible to him, and he
cannot afford the copying fees at this time. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff argues that the statute of
Case 3:24-cv-02646-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
limitations to file suit in the Illinois Court of Claims has passed and to not reinstitute the claim in
this case would permanently bar him from relief and would be morally wrong. (Id.).
Plaintiff has not shown that the Court’s Merits Review Order contained an error of fact or
law based on the factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint. The Court cannot infer
liability on Gentles for inadequate medical care based on the “collective ministerial neglect” of
subordinates or fellow employees. There is no vicarious liability under Section 1983. See Aguilar
v. Gaston-Camara, 861 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir. 2017). Nor will the Court reconsider its Merits
Review Order because of new allegations and additional information contained in documents not
included in the First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff also appears to argue that the Court should reinstate the dismissal of Count 3.
Count 3 was a claim brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) against Defendants for punishing Plaintiff for refusing to take the tuberculosis skin test
because of his religious beliefs. (Doc. 14, p. 5, 7). The Court dismissed this count because Plaintiff
sued Defendants in their personal capacities for monetary damages, which is not authorized under
RLUIPA. Plaintiff argues that at the time of filing the First Amended Complaint his “knowledge
of the difference between personal and professional capacity was incomplete.” (Doc. 21, p. 2).
Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the law does not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s Merits
Review Order. For these reasons, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Plaintiff makes the statement that Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, which were not dismissed in the
Merits Review Order, are the “proximate cause for the [back] injury.” (Doc. 21, p. 2). The Court
clarifies that while Plaintiff has not made sufficient arguments to revive a constitutional claim for
the denial or delay of medical care following his back injury against a named defendant, nothing
in this Order prohibits Plaintiff from arguing his that back injury was caused by Defendants’
Case 3:24-cv-02646-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
conduct as asserted under the surviving counts (Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 3, 2025
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02646-SPM Document 33 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>