James III v. Dyer et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/5/2015. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry o f this order to file an amended complaint with respect to defendants Dyer and Littrell. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Defendants Hertz, Villafuerte and John Doe are dismissed. Amended Complaint due by 4/8/2015. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 09 March, 2015 09:21:51 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NED JAMES III,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER D. DYER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-2283

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Statesville
Correctional Center, files this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging failure to protect from harm, excessive force,
and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need that occurred
while he was incarcerated at Jerome Combs Detention Center.
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 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is

Page 1 of 8 

plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff sued five (5) defendants: four correctional officers and
a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that on May 26, 2014 he was assaulted by
another inmate at Jerome Combs Detention Center. From this
assault, Plaintiff suffered a lump on his eye and a swollen lip.
Plaintiff alleges that the other inmate should not have been allowed
into his area of the prison. At some point during, or after, the
assault, Plaintiff was tased three times. Plaintiff alleges that officers
used excessive force when removing the taser darts from his body,
causing blood to spurt from the wounds. Plaintiff alleges he saw a
doctor several days later, but that the care was inadequate.
ANALYSIS
Failure to Protect
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dyer and Littrell failed to
protect him from harm by allowing another inmate into Plaintiff’s
area of the prison, in violation of a prison policy.
The Eighth Amendment imposes upon prison officials the duty
to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the
Page 2 of 8 

inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). The duty requires
prison officials “to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of
other prisoners.” Id. at 833 (internal quotations omitted). To
succeed on a failure to protect claim, a plaintiff must show (1) “that
he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm,” and, (2) prison officials acted with “deliberate
indifference” to that risk. Id. at 834. A prison official acts with
deliberate indifference if he “knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of
the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Id. A plaintiff “normally proves actual knowledge of
impending harm by showing that he complained to prison officials
about a specific threat to his safety.” Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92
(7th Cir. 1996) (quoting McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.3d 344, 349 (7th
Cir. 1991)). Liability attaches where “deliberate indifference by
prison officials effectively condones the attack by allowing it to
happen….” Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d 630, 640 (7th Cir. 1996).

Page 3 of 8 

Potentially, Plaintiff has a claim for failure to protect against
these defendants. However, Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts
that show an excessive risk that Plaintiff would be harmed by this
particular inmate, much less that Defendants Dyer and Littrell
knew of and appreciated such a risk, but failed to act. If Plaintiff
were to describe why this inmate was a threat, how the defendants
knew of the threat, and what reasonable steps the defendants failed
to take, then Plaintiff may be able to state a claim. At this point,
though, Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is given
leave to file an amended complaint on this issue.
Excessive Force
Plaintiff alleges a claim of excessive force related to the use of
a taser: first, when Defendant Hertz tased him; and, second, when
Defendant Villafuerte removed the taser darts in a forceful manner.
As a result, Plaintiff alleges he hit his head on the floor and bled
excessively from the dart wounds.
In Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force, the relevant
inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the
very purpose of causing harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6
Page 4 of 8 

(1992) (citation omitted); see DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th
Cir. 2000) (applying Hudson). In making this determination, the
court may examine several factors, “including the need for an
application of force, the relationship between that need and the
force applied, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible
officers, the efforts made to temper the severity of the force
employed, and the extent of the injury suffered by the prisoner.”
Dewalt, 224 F.3d at 619. Significant injury is not required, but “a
claim ordinarily cannot be predicated on a de minimis use of
physical force.” Id. at 620 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10).
“Thus, not every push or shove by a prison guard violates a
prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Id.
Plaintiff was involved in some type of altercation with another
inmate. Regardless of whether the other inmate was the aggressor,
which Plaintiff alleges and the Court accepts as true at this point,
the actions of Defendants Hertz and Villafuerte do not amount to a
constitutional violation. From the facts alleged, the Defendants
were responding to a fight. Nothing indicates that Defendant
Hertz’s actions were motivated by the intent to maliciously and
sadistically cause harm to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, once the
Page 5 of 8 

taser darts were embedded in Plaintiff’s body, one could expect a
reasonable amount of force would be needed to remove them.
Given Plaintiff’s relatively minor injuries, Plaintiff cannot show that
the amount of force used by Defendants Hertz and Villafuerte was
excessive. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim against Defendants Hertz and Villafuerte.
Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need
Plaintiff alleges facts that suggest he is trying to assert a claim
against the John Doe medical doctor named in his Complaint for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
To prevail, Plaintiff must show that prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The deliberate indifference standard is the
same as described above, and “[a]n objectively serious medical need
is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would
easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” King v.
Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations
omitted).

Page 6 of 8 

Plaintiff’s injuries, as described, do not rise to the level of a
serious medical need. Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered a lump
above his eye, a busted lip, and puncture wounds from the taser
darts. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged that he was denied
medical treatment, rather, that he did not receive the desired
treatment. A mere disagreement with the course of treatment does
not constitute a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 1996)
(citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under
the Eighth Amendment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an
amended complaint with respect to defendants Dyer and Littrell.
Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of
this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's
amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its
entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all

Page 7 of 8 

allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not
accepted.
2)

The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendants Hertz,

Villafuerte, and John Doe medical doctor for failure to state a claim.
ENTERED:

March 5, 2015

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 8