Campbell v. Melvin et al

Filing 13

MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/11/2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD PROCEDURES; AND, 2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS F ROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER SCHEDULING DEADLINES. LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT IF A DEFENDANT FAILS TO SIGN AND RETURN A WAIVER OF SERVICE TO THE CLERK WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE WAIVER IS SENT, T HE COURT WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO EFFECT FORMAL SERVICE THROUGH THE U.S. MARSHAL'S SERVICE ON THAT DEFENDANT AND WILL REQUIRE THAT DEFENDANT TO PAY THE FULL COSTS OF FORMAL SERVICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(d)(2). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 11 April, 2018 04:29:05 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRAVIS CAMPBELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL P. MELVIN, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 17-cv-1227-JBM

MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint alleging excessive force and
inhumane conditions of confinement at the Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff was housed in the Pontiac West House in cell number 904.
Plaintiff’s cell was submitted to a shakedown by Officer Martinez, not a party. After the
shakedown, Plaintiff admittedly told the Officer to put his stuff back or he would head-butt her.
Plaintiff was given a disciplinary ticket for intimidation/threats, and insolence. He was taken to
5 Gallery on the North House and placed, shackled, in a medical holding room. Major Prentice

1

approached, stating she heard he had threatened one of her officers. Plaintiff replied, “so what
you gonna do?” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Prentice threatened to have his “head split”.
She left the room, and three minutes later Defendant Corley arrived with three Orange Crush
Tactical Team members. Plaintiff claims that they stomped him in the ribs, back and knees.
They allegedly spit in his face and use a racially pejorative term. Plaintiff claims to have lost
consciousness and when he awoke, Defendants had him standing, and were bending his wrists
backwards.
Plaintiff was taken to the 1 Gallery segregation area and placed in cell number 733.
Plaintiff makes the unadorned claim that he was held there for eight days without a blanket, bed
or sheets. He does not allege that the cell was cold or that the conditions caused him any harm.
This case shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Prentice, Corley and three
Doe Orange Crush Team members subjected him to an unconstitutional use of force. Plaintiff
fails to plead an inhumane conditions of confinement claim, however, as he does not allege an
extreme deprivation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Conditions which are
“restrictive and even harsh” do not reach this standard. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
(1981). Mere discomfort and inconvenience do not implicate the Constitution. Caldwell v.
Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 600-01 (7th Cir.1986). A prison official does not become liable for
inhumane conditions of confinement “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Here, Plaintiff fails to identify an
excessive risk to his health or safety and this claim is DISMISSED.

2

As previously noted, Plaintiff has disclosed that he filed his complaint prior to the
completion of the grievance process. While a district court may dismiss at merit review if the
existence of a failure to exhaust defense is plainly pled, the Court will reserve this matter for a
more fully developed record. Boyce v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 661 Fed.Appx. 441, 443
(7th Cir. 2016).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This case shall proceed solely on the excessive force claims against Defendants

Prentice, Corley and three Doe Orange Crush Team members. Plaintiff is advised that it will be
his responsibility, through initial disclosures and discovery, to identify the Doe Defendants by
name. All other claims will not be included in the case, except in the Court's discretion upon
motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Status [12] is rendered MOOT.

3.

The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this District's internal

procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4.

If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the Clerk within 30

days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address provided
by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint shall
provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, Defendant's forwarding
address. This information will be used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of

3

forwarding addresses will be maintained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the
public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
5.

Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by Local Rule. A Motion to

Dismiss is not an answer. The answer it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the issues and claims identified in
this Order.
6.

Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served, but who is not

represented by counsel, a copy of every filing submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the
Court, and shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was mailed.
Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a required certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
7.

Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of

filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's
document electronically and send notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic
service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
8.

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at Plaintiff's

place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the depositions.
9.

Plaintiff shall immediately notice the Court of any change in mailing address or

phone number. The Clerk is directed to set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of
this Order for the Court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling deadlines.
10.

Plaintiff files [5], a motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel and later filed

exhibit [8]. While the exhibit contains a handwritten list of several attorneys’ offices, it does not

4

indicate that Plaintiff contacted them and made attempts to secure counsel on his own. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). [5] is DENIED at this time. In the event Plaintiff
renews his motion for appointment of counsel, he is to provide copies of the letters sent to, and
received from, the attorneys he has contacted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD
PROCEDURES; AND,
2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF
THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER
SCHEDULING DEADLINES.
LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT IF A DEFENDANT FAILS TO SIGN AND
RETURN A WAIVER OF SERVICE TO THE CLERK WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE
WAIVER IS SENT, THE COURT WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO EFFECT
FORMAL SERVICE THROUGH THE U.S. MARSHAL'S SERVICE ON THAT
DEFENDANT AND WILL REQUIRE THAT DEFENDANT TO PAY THE FULL COSTS OF
FORMAL SERVICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(d)(2).
ENTERED: 4/11/2018

_____s/Joe Billy McDade______
JOE BILLY McDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5