Lee v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department et al
Filing
6
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/24/2012. Defendant Sheriff Williamson is dismissed from the case. Further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 set for 11/27/2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can reach the case) be fore U S District Judge Sue E Myerscough by telephone conference. The conference will be cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending issues need discussion. Accordingly, no writ for the Plaintiff's presence will be issued unless directed by the Court. Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court of any change in his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 24 September, 2012 04:02:13 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ISAAC ALFONSO LEE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF NEIL WILLIAMSON,
LIEUTENANT CANDI CANE,
C/O JOHN KIRBY,
C/O JIMMY WYSE, and
SERGEANT BRIAN CARRIE,
Defendants.
12-CV-3063
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Lawrence
Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from an incident which
occurred during his detention in the Sangamon County Jail. The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a
prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such
1
process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is
“frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” A hearing is held if necessary to assist the Court in this review,
but, in this case, the Court concludes that no hearing is necessary. The
Complaint and its attachments are clear enough on their own for this
Court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The review standard under § 1915A is the same as the notice
pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a
claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give “‘fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” EEOC v.
Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007)(quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add’l citation
omitted)). The factual “allegations must plausibly suggest that the
plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative
2
level.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic, 550
U.S. at 555-56). However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when
applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.
2009).
ALLEGATIONS
On January 19, 2012, while detained in the Sangamon County Jail,
Plaintiff got into an altercation with another inmate, who struck him in
the face with a sock holding batteries. Defendant Cane rushed in and
sprayed the other inmate with mace. Though the situation was under
control and Plaintiff was returning to his room, Defendant Wyse threw
Plaintiff into a wall, and Defendant Carrie forcefully twisted Plaintiff’s
wrist. Plaintiff suffered severe pain about his face, wrist, and arm. He
3
was kept in segregation for four days without a disciplinary ticket, but
the other inmate was not placed in segregation. Plaintiff’s pleas for
medical attention were ignored.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s allegations are short on detail, but he alleges facts
sufficient to infer plausible constitutional claims for excessive force and
deliberate indifference to his need for medical attention. As for his
segregation, "[a] pretrial detainee cannot be placed in segregation as a
punishment for a disciplinary infraction without notice and an
opportunity to be heard; due process requires no less. . . . But no process
is required if he is placed in segregation not as punishment but for
managerial reasons.” Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir.
2002)(citations omitted). The reasons for Plaintiff’s segregation are not
in the record, making dismissal of the segregation claim premature.
However, Sheriff Williamson will be dismissed. He cannot be held
liable for the constitutional violations of others solely because he is in
charge. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir.
4
2001)(no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). No plausible
inference arises that Williamson participated in, directed, approved of, or
turned a blind eye to the adverse actions. See Johnson v. Snyder, 444
F.3d 579, 583-84 (7th Cir.2006)(liability under § 1983 requires personal
involvement).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following federal
constitutional claims: 1) excessive force; 2) deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s need for medical attention for injuries and pain; and, 3)
placement in segregation without due process. This case proceeds solely
on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional claims shall
not be included in the case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by
a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.
2) The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
5
Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3) a copy of the Complaint;
and, 4) this order.
3) 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 serve 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).
4) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while
at that address shall provide to the Clerk said Defendant's current work
address, or, if not known, said Defendant's forwarding address. This
information shall be used only for serving said Defendant.
Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained 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 time prescribed by
Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should
6
include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and
subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this
Opinion.
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 Plaintiff 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 his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's
counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's document electronically
and send a notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute service on Defendants pursuant to Local
Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff
will be notified and instructed accordingly.
7
8) This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16 on November 27, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court
can reach the case) before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough by
telephone conference. The conference will be cancelled if service has
been accomplished and no pending issues need discussion. Accordingly,
no writ will issue for Plaintiff’s presence unless directed by the Court.
9) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the depositions.
10) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court of any change in
his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the
Court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in
dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.
ENTERED: September 24, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?