IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARCUS E. HENDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-325

)

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the amended complaint filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Marcus E. Henderson, a pro se

prisoner, on August 7, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, this

case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2013, Henderson was an inmate at the Saint

Joseph County Jail. While there, he was told by a nurse and a guard

that if he did not take a tuberculosis (TB) skin test, that he

would be placed in solitary confinement. Though he wanted to speak

to a supervisor, to see documentation in writing, and to speak to

his attorney before agreeing to take the test, he agreed to take it

immediately because he did not want to be put in solitary

confinement. After the test, he was given a paper stating that he

was allowed 30 days of free medical treatment at the jail. As a
result, he saw a doctor and obtained two prescriptions. Two weeks

later, he was charged for those services and the funds were

deducted from his inmate trust account. 

DISCUSSION

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and

dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to

state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that

defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2)

that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v.

Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Henderson objects to having been “coerced” into taking the TB

test by being told that if he refused, he would be placed in

solitary confinement. Tuberculosis is a communicable disease that

can be fatal. Tuberculosis, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/default.htm. For

this reason, the CDC recommends segregating inmates in correctional

-2-
facilities until they have been screened for tuberculosis.

Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis in Correctional and

Detention Facilities: Recommendations from CDC (revised June 22,

2006), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5509a1.htm.

Because of the medical risks posed by exposing others to an

infected inmate, courts have found that such testing is not

unconstitutional. “[T]uberculosis can be a serious problem in

prisons. If allowed to spread it can result in highly undesirable

situations.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 1997).

“Effective disease control requires systematic skin testing . . .

.” McCaster v. Clausen, 684 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012). “Prisons are

high risk environments for tuberculosis infection. Thus, screening

and control measures are necessary to prevent outbreaks.” DeGidio

v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) (footnote omitted). “We have

recognized that prison officials must test prisoners for

tuberculosis . . . in order to prevent widespread infection.” Lee

v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1993). See also McCormick v.

Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059 (5th Cir. 1997) (upholding forced treatment

for TB); Africa v. Horn, 998 F. Supp. 557 (E.D. Pa. 1998)

(upholding the requirement that inmates either take the TB test or

remain in segregated housing for 12 months); Westbrook v. Wilson,

896 F. Supp. 504 (D. Md. 1995) (upholding placing inmates on

medical segregation if they refused TB testing); Ballard v.

Woodard, 641 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. N.C. 1986) (upholding forced TB

-3-
testing); Hasenmeier-McCarthy, 986 F. Supp. 464 (upholding forced

TB testing). Though courts have raised concerns where the objection

to the TB test was based on a sincerely held religious belief or

where the inmate had been subjected to extended and severe

deprivations for refusing the test, see Williams v. Greifinger, 97

F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 1996) and Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d

Cir. N.Y. 1996), the complaint here does not raise either concern

in this case. Therefore Henderson was not denied his Constitutional

rights when he was told that he either had to take the TB test or

he would be placed in segregation. 

Next, Henderson objects to being charged for medical treatment

after he was told that it would be free. In effect, he alleges that

they tricked him and stole his money. The Fourteenth Amendment

provides that state officials shall not “deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” However,

a state tort claims act that provides a method by which a person

can seek reimbursement for the negligent loss or intentional

depravation of property meets the requirements of the due process

clause by providing due process of law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.

517, 533 (1984) and Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir.

2001) (“Wynn has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the Indiana

Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due.”). Because the State

of Indiana provides Henderson with a means to obtain redress for

-4-
his loss, he has not been denied due process and does not state a

claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DATED: August 15, 2014 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-5-