Adams v. Smith et al
Filing
143
ORDER GRANTING Motion for Summary Judgment filed by V Smith and Warden (Doc. 126 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/14/2016. (mah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BYRON ADAMS, A60952,
Plaintiff,
vs.
V. SMITH and
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-985-SMY-PMF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Byron Adams, an inmate currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant Smith, in his individual
capacity, and Defendant Harrington, in his official capacity, violated his Eighth Amendment
rights. Adams seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Now pending before the Court is
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 126). For the following reasons, the motion
is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Adams is an inmate currently incarcerated at Pontiac, but was previously housed at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). The incidents that give rise to this litigation occurred
while he was at Menard. After arriving at Menard, Adams was placed in a one man cell (Doc.
127-1, p. 15). In June 2013, Adams was notified that he would soon be placed in a two man cell
(Doc. 127-1, p. 15).
On June 13, 2013, C/O Smith and a Menard mental health care professional named Ms.
Morrison stopped by Adams’ cell (Doc. 1, p. 4). Adams wanted to discuss his impending
transfer to a two man cell and told Ms. Morrison that he wanted to speak to her privately. Id.
Ms. Morrison declined to speak to Adams privately, but told him that he could write her a letter.
Id.
Adams testified at his deposition that he was fearful of being placed in a two man cell
because he was concerned about gang reprisals for his 1977 Stateville testimony 1 (Doc. 127-1, p.
15). Adams stated “[I] didn’t want to be in a cell with a gang-banger, because a gang member
killed Lieutenant Burd, and if I got in a cell with the wrong one who knew about what happened,
you know, it would be a situation” (Doc. 127-1, p. 15).
On June 14, 2013, Adams was placed in two man cell with inmate James Vaughn (Doc.
127-2). He believed Vaughn was a gang member, but did not know which gang Vaughn was
affiliated with (Doc. 127-1, p. 14). Adams was dissatisfied with the cell assignment. Id. He
wrote a letter to Ms. Morrison stating that he would like to be placed back in a one man cell
(Doc. 1, p. 4). Adams discussed the Stateville incident in the letter and said that he needed a one
man cell due to the risk of a gang reprisal. Id. Adams also stated that he did not mention these
issues with Smith present because of an incident 2 that occurred with Smith in the Menard Health
Care Unit (“HCU”) (Doc. 1, p. 5). On the evening of June 14, 2013, Adams finished the letter
and placed it in his cell bars to be delivered (Doc. 127-1, p. 21).
On the morning of June 15, 2013, a nurse named Heather McGee came to Adams’ gallery
to apply bandages to his feet for an unrelated injury (Doc. 127-1, p. 23). Nurse McGee remarked
that she had read Adams’ letter to Ms. Morrison and that his involvement in the 1977 Stateville
1
In January 1977, while incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, Adams witnessed the murder of
Peter Burd, a correctional lieutenant, by a member of the Gangster Disciples (Doc. 127-1, p. 13). Adams
subsequently testified against the gang member (Id. at p. 16).
2
Sometime earlier in 2013, Adams heard Smith remark that a prisoner was assaulted in the shower
because he was “telling [the] administration stuff” (Doc. 127-1, p. 20). Adams interpreted Smith’s
remark to mean that Smith was calling the prisoner a “snitch”. Adams did not want Smith to label him a
snitch and so he did not want to discuss his celling issue with Smith present. Id.
2
incident was a good thing. Id. Adams told Nurse McGee that the letter was only intended for
Ms. Morrison and that it should not be shared with anyone else. Id. After Nurse McGee finished
bandaging Adams’ feet, he returned to his cell. Id. After Adams was back in his cell, Smith
stopped by to take Vaughn to the showers (Doc. 127-1, p. 24). Adams described the following
sequence of events at his deposition:
“Officer Smith come and get [sic] my cellmate to take him to the shower. I hadn’t
told Officer Smith nothing was wrong with me or anything, but when he came
back with my cellmate, he asked me is you okay, and I was wondering what he
was talking about, I didn’t know what he was talking about. I just told him, yeah,
I’m okay. My cellie come in and he started acting funny and stuff, you know,
throwing stuff around, acted like he wanted to fight with me. I didn’t know what
was going on. So I sat in the bed, got some papers, was writing the Major a letter
to get out of the cell. So as I was writing letter, he reached down and snatched it
out of my hand. He say, you writing another letter, roomie? I said, what you
mean? He said, I seen the letter that Officer Smith had. Man came up to the bars
and yell out to the bars in front of all the other guys, dude in the cell with me, he a
snitch, he witnessed the killing of a lieutenant. Vaughn told everybody on the
gallery, he hollered it out.”
(Doc 127-1, pp. 23-24). Adams spent the rest of the day attempting to get a cell transfer.
Due to Adams’ repeated requests, a correctional officer named Sergeant Eovaldi stopped
by Adams’ cell. (Doc. 127-1, p. 26). As Adams quietly told Sergeant Eovaldi about the cellmate
issue, Vaughn yelled from the back of the cell that he had read the letter to Ms. Morrison (Doc.
127-1, p. 27). Sergeant Eovaldi responded by telling Adams to “be cool” and that he would
“take care of this” (Doc. 127-1, p. 28). Sergeant Eovaldi then notified the other correctional
officers of the issue, but neither Eovaldi nor the other correctional officers transferred Adams out
of the cell (Doc. 127-1, p. 30).
The tension between Adams and Vaughn persisted and Vaughn told Adams that “you are
not going to sleep in here,” which Adams construed as a death threat (Doc. 127-1, p. 35).
Sometime later that evening or early the following day, Adams requested a nurse so that he could
3
report a “crisis.” Id. He was transferred to the HCU to be evaluated. Id. Adams spent the rest
of his time at Menard in and out of protective custody. (Doc. 127-1, p. 37). The precise timeline
of events is not entirely clear from the record, but Adams testified at his deposition that he only
spent one day with Vaughn (Doc. 127-1, p. 38). Adams was not physically injured as a result of
these events (Doc. 127-1, p. 67). All of his alleged injuries were mental or emotional. Id.
Adams filed this lawsuit on September 16, 2013 (Doc. 1). He was transferred to Pontiac
on June 11, 2014, where he currently resides (Doc. 127-1, p. 11).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court “shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” When presented with a motion
for summary judgment the court must view all facts and reasonable inferences in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Sartor v. Spherion Corp., 388 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 2004).
The summary judgment phase of litigation has been described as the “‘put up or shut up’
moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of
fact to accept its version of events.” Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th
Cir. 2003).
As the Supreme Court has held,“[a] prison official's “deliberate indifference” to a
substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1974, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). If a prisoner
plaintiff has been physically injured or sexually assaulted as a result of a prison official’s
deliberate indifference, the prisoner plaintiff may recover monetary or nominal damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 271 (7th Cir. 1996). If the
4
prisoner plaintiff has not yet been injured, the prisoner may seek prospective injunctive relief to
“prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm [.]” Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 845, 114 S. Ct. at 1983.
In this case, Adams has already been transferred to his preferred prison (i.e., Pontiac).
Therefore, his request for injunctive relief is moot and Defendant Harrington is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the sole issue remaining before the Court is whether Adams’
claim against C/O Smith in his individual capacity survives for summary judgment.
A prisoner plaintiff’s ability to obtain monetary damages under these circumstances is
sharply limited. The Seventh Circuit has held that “failure to prevent exposure to risk of harm”
type claims are not cognizable absent a prison “official’s malicious or sadistic intent.” Babcock
v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 272 (7th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the Prison Litigation Reform Act
provides that “No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or
other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
In this case, Adams asserts that Smith placed him at a substantial risk of serious injury
when Smith discussed the 1977 Stateville incident (and Ms. Morrison’s letter) with inmate
Vaughn. However, as the record reflects, Adams was never physically injured as a result of
Smith’s actions. Additionally, even assuming that Adams was at a substantial risk of serious
injury when he shared a cell with Vaughn, Adams has not presented evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that Smith was deliberately indifferent to that risk or that Smith
kept him in the cell due to “malicious or sadistic intent.”
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 126) is
GRANTED.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 14, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
6
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?