Snow v. List et al
Filing
48
OPINION granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/10/2013. (CT, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 10 July, 2013 08:43:30 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MATTHEW SNOW, et al.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DAMON LIST, et al.,
Defendants,
No. 11-3411
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and is currently incarcerated in
Sheridan Correctional Center.
According to Plaintiff, during Plaintiff's incarceration in Logan
Correctional Center on February 24, 2011, Correctional Officer List
made offensive remarks to Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s large breasts.
List allegedly told Plaintiff that Plaintiff “would have made a lot of
money here back in the day,” referring to a time when prisons were
ruled by gang members. Plaintiff asked what List meant, whereupon
List allegedly demonstrated by simulating masturbation. According
to Plaintiff, List then remarked, "What do I gotta' do? Draw a map
for ya'?" List then “placed both his hands on [Plaintiff's] chest,
Page 1 of 8
squeezed it, then forced it together in the middle to look like boobs
and said ‘with these babies!’” (Compl. pp. 5-7).
Plaintiff contends that he was denied mental health treatment
for the severe traumatization he allegedly experienced from List's
offensive conduct. Plaintiff also alleges that he was retaliated
against for complaining about the incident.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment, to which
Plaintiff has filed no response, though Plaintiff was warned that
failure to do so would result in the Court accepting as true
Defendants' proposed facts which are supported by cites to
admissible evidence.
Defendants' evidence shows that summary judgment must be
granted for Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation and
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's need for mental health
treatment. Plaintiff points to no evidence that the events after the
incident were motivated by retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints.
Plaintiff was placed in segregation for security reasons during an
internal investigation of the incident, not to retaliate against him.
Plaintiff has no evidence to support his claims that the investigation
was inadequate, that Defendants failed to keep Plaintiff and List
Page 2 of 8
separate, or that Defendants failed to transfer Plaintiff, much less
any evidence that these purported failings were motivated by
retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints. Plaintiff also does not dispute
that he did not seek mental health treatment in the days following
the incident either through established procedures or from
Defendants.
The claim against Officer List is more difficult to resolve.
Though Plaintiff has not responded to the summary judgment
motion, List does not deny making the offensive comments. List
does deny touching Plaintiff, but List did not file his own affidavit.
Further, the documents attached to the motion for summary
judgment corroborate Plaintiff's claim that List grabbed Plaintiff's
breasts in the manner described by Plaintiff.
As the Court stated in its merit review order, the Eighth
Amendment prohibits the “wanton infliction of psychological pain,”
regardless of physical injury, though the deprivation must still be
serious enough to garner the Constitution’s attention. Compare
Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003)(inmate stated
Eighth Amendment claim for strip search “conducted in a harassing
manner intended to humiliate and inflict psychological pain.”) with
Page 3 of 8
Dobbey v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 574 F.3d at 445-446
(7th Cir. 2009)(guard’s hanging of noose in front of black prisoners
did not state a claim). “[A] prisoner has a remedy for deliberate
harassment, on account of sex, by guards of either sex.” Johnson v.
Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 147 (7th Cir. 1995).
In the Court's opinion, List's offensive sexual remarks coupled
with the grabbing of Plaintiff's breasts would support a jury verdict
for Plaintiff on an Eighth Amendment claim. A reasonable inference
arises that List's conduct was done solely for the purpose of sexually
harassing and humiliating Plaintiff.
Whether compensatory damages are available to Plaintiff under
the amended version of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) will be determined after
input from the parties. The current version of this section allows an
inmate to recover for emotional injury if a "sexual act" was
committed, which appears to include the "intentional touching . . . of
the breast, . . . with an intent to abuse humiliate, harass, degrade,
or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(e)(incorporating definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2246). In any
event, even if compensatory damages are not available, nominal and
punitive damages may be available.
Page 4 of 8
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part
and denied in part (d/e 43). Summary judgment is granted to
Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation and deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's serious mental health needs.
Summary judgment is granted to Defendants Standley and
Dawson. Summary judgment is denied to Defendant List on
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim arising from List's alleged
offensive remarks and sexual grabbing of Plaintiff's breasts.
2. A final pretrial conference remains scheduled for September
17, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.. Plaintiff shall appear by video
conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. The
parties are directed to submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial
order at least seven days before the final pretrial conference.
Defendant bears the responsibility of preparing the proposed
final pretrial order and mailing the proposed order to Plaintiff
to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to review the order before the
final pretrial conference. See CD-IL Local Rule 16.3.
3. The proposed final pretrial order must include the names of all
witnesses to be called at the trial and must indicate whether
Page 5 of 8
the witness will appear in person or by video conference.
Nonparty witnesses who are detained or incarcerated will
testify by video. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by
video at the Court's discretion. The proposed pretrial order
must also include the names and addresses of any witnesses
for whom trial subpoenas are sought. The parties are
responsible for timely obtaining and serving any necessary
subpoenas, as well as providing the necessary witness and
mileage fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
4. The exhibit section of the proposed final pretrial order must list
by number all the exhibits a party may seek to introduce at the
trial and give a short description of the exhibit. (For example,
“Plaintiff’s Ex. 1: 11/10/12 health care request”). The parties
must prepare their own exhibits for introduction at the trial,
marking the exhibits with the same number that is on the list
submitted to the Court. Exhibits that are introduced at trial
will be kept in the Court record. Therefore, the party offering
the exhibit is responsible for making a copy of the exhibit to
keep for the party’s own records. Additionally, the parties are
directed to exchange copies of their marked exhibits at least
Page 6 of 8
ten days before the final pretrial conference. If a party intends
to object to the introduction of a proposed exhibit, that party
must provide the Court a copy of the exhibit and an
explanation of the grounds for objection at least five business
days before the final pretrial conference. Objections will be
argued orally at the final pretrial conference.
5. By September 3, 2013, the parties shall submit briefs
addressing whether Plaintiff is entitled to seek compensatory
damages for mental suffering under the current version of 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
6. The Court will circulate proposed jury instructions, a
statement of the case, and proposed voir dire questions prior to
the final pretrial conference, for discussion at the final pretrial
conference. Proposed additional/alternate instructions and
voir dire questions must be filed five business days before the
final pretrial conference. The jury instructions, statement of
the case, and voir dire questions will be finalized at the final
pretrial conference, to the extent possible.
Page 7 of 8
7. Motions in limine are to be filed at least five business days
before the final pretrial conference, to be argued orally at the
final pretrial conference.
8. The jury trial remains scheduled for November 6, 2013, at 9:00
a.m..
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED
TO: 1) terminate Defendants Standley and Dawson; and 2) issue
video writs to secure Plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial
conference and the jury trial.
ENTER: July 10, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?