Daniels v. Mezo et al
Filing
153
ORDER DENYING Defendant Kevin Reichert's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 131 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 9/12/2018. (bps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRIAN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS T. MEZO, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:14-cv-01058-SMY-RJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Kevin Reichert’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
131). Plaintiff Darrian Daniels filed a Response (Doc. 141) and Reichert filed a Reply (Doc.
142). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Darrian Daniels, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
action claiming that his constitutional rights were violated in March 2014 while he was
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).
Specifically, Daniels alleges that
Defendant Thomas Mezo and other unknown correctional officers subjected him to excessive
force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Daniels further alleges that Mezo and other
unknown correctional officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a cell
with a violent inmate, thereby causing him to be physically assaulted. Additionally, Daniels
claims that he notified Defendant Shana Bebout about the threats made against him by Mezo and
the other officers, and that her failure to take corrective action violated the Eighth Amendment.
On September 8, 2017, Daniels filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 92) which
added a claim against Defendant Kevin Reichert for failure to protect Daniels from Officer
Mezo. Daniels alleges Reichert was aware that Mezo posed a substantial risk of harm to him,
but failed to act on it.
Page 1 of 6
Factual Background
In March 2014, Defendant Reichert was employed by the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) as internal affairs lieutenant at Menard. 1
He was responsible for
overseeing the other staff members in the Internal Affairs Unit, assigning staff members to
conduct interviews, and other duties as assigned by his superiors. On March 14, 2014, Reichert
received an e-mail from Julie Eggemeyer, secretary to the warden at Menard, relaying a message
from an individual identified as Catina Taylor:
Im writing n regards to inmate [Daniels] ... inmate statea he is being harressed by
the guards and nothing is being done about it!! Inmate states that glass is being
put n his food & was harassed by a officer by the name of mezo. Inmate also state
he is n seg for 6months for sumthing a female nurse lied & said he did...please
investigate this matter..thank u. (Doc. 132-1 at 4).
The e-mail requests a “suggested response” from Reichert within 13 days. Reichert interpreted
the e-mail as the warden directing the Menard Internal Affairs Unit to inquire into the claims in
the email.
Reichert assigned Defendant Shana Bebout, an internal affairs officer, to interview
Daniels concerning the claims in Ms. Taylor’s message. Bebout interviewed Daniels on March
21, 2014 and it did not go well. Bebout summarized her meeting in an e-mail that day, stating
that Daniels admitted he had been given three direct orders to come to the “chuck hole” to have
restraints put on before his adjustment committee hearing. Bebout therefore concluded that the
“allegations are not substantiated.” (Doc. 132-1 at 5). She also stated that Daniels was “very
belligerent and hostile” during the interview, which led her to terminate the meeting. Bebout
stated in her e-mail that Daniels kicked a chair and called her several vulgar names.
1
Unless otherwise noted, all factual statements are culled from the statement of undisputed material facts
incorporated into Reichert’s Memorandum (Doc. 132) and admitted by Daniels in his Response (Doc. 141).
Page 2 of 6
Based on the information he received from Bebout, Reichert responded to Ms.
Eggemeyer that the allegations in Ms. Taylor’s message were “unsubstantiated.” (Id.). During
his deposition, Reichert testified he was “sure Officer Bebout told [him] the story” in person, but
that he does not recall it. (Doc. 141-6 at 5-6). Bebout similarly testified that she reported the
contents of her interview summary to Reichert in person and would have answered any of his
questions, although she did not recall whether he had any. (Doc. 141-4 at 4). Reichert never
interviewed Daniels.
Daniels claims that he was subsequently attacked by his cellmate and Officer Mezo on
March 24, 2014. Reichert maintains that his only prior knowledge of any allegations relating to
Daniels came from Ms. Eggemeyer’s e-mail, Bebout’s post-interview e-mail, and “any
information Officer Bebout may have provided to [Reichert] in-person.” (Doc 132-1 at ¶ 7).
Discussion
Summary judgment is proper if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must consider the facts and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp., 703 F.3d 966, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). At this stage of the litigation,
“the court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether
there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24
F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994).
“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 (1994). In order
to succeed on a failure to protect claim, the plaintiff must establish two elements. First, the
Page 3 of 6
plaintiff must show that that he “experienced, or was exposed to, a serious harm, [and] that there
was a substantial risk beforehand that that serious harm might actually occur.” Brown v. Budz,
398 F.3d 904, 910 (7th Cir. 2005). Second, the plaintiff must show that a defendant was
deliberately indifferent to that risk. Id. at 913. “Whether a prison official had the requisite
knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual
ways[.]” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.
Deliberate indifference occurs “where an official realizes that a substantial risk of serious
harm to a prisoner exists, but disregards it…. [and] may be found where an official knows about
unconstitutional conduct and facilitates, approves, condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v.
Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781–82 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “[R]equests for relief which
have fallen on deaf ears may evidence deliberate indifference[.]” Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d
640, 645 (7th Cir. 1997). On the other hand, “reasonable measures taken to avert known risks
will insulate a prison official from Eighth Amendment liability, even if those measures proved
unsuccessful.” Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632, 646 (7th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Daniels argues that Reichert received adequate warning that Mezo was a
threat to him, and that Reichert’s failure to take appropriate action to mitigate the threat
constitutes deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Reichert contends that he was
not aware of a substantial risk of harm to Daniels because the person he delegated to investigate
(Bebout) told him the accusations were unsubstantiated. In other words, he acted reasonably in
ordering Bebout to investigate and in relying on the resulting report.
Genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Reichert had knowledge of a
substantial risk of harm to Daniels, and whether his response (or lack thereof) to Ms. Taylor’s
warning constituted deliberate indifference. In her deposition, Bebout testified that prisoner
Page 4 of 6
complaints regarding harassment or other misconduct were not within the scope of her job and
would be passed to the lieutenant of internal affairs. (Doc. 141-4 at 3-4). She further testified,
“once staff is involved, that’s not…my investigation no more.” (Id. at 6). This testimony creates
a question for the jury as to what responsibility, if any, Reichert had to conduct additional
investigation once Bebout informed him that Daniels’ complaint involved a correctional officer,
and whether Reichert’s decision not to further investigate constitutes deliberate indifference.
Thus, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Reichert also asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Officials are sheltered
from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct ‘does not violate
clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, would have
comprehended.” Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056, 2061, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (2014) (quoting
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)).
In
determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must answer two
questions: (1) whether “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do
the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right…” and if so (2)
“whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).
Daniels presents evidence that Reichert was given information of an adequately specific
threat from a specific source, that he failed to take action, and that the potential harm became
actual harm. The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that such circumstances may form the
basis of a failure to protect claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 912 (7th Cir. 2005);
Billman v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995). As such, Daniels’ Eighth
Amendment rights in this context were clearly established and qualified immunity is
inapplicable.
Page 5 of 6
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Kevin Reichert’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 131) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 12, 2018
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 6 of 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?