Vasquez v. Vandalia Correctional Center et al

Filing 7

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/16/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA VASQUEZ,
No. M25484,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
VANDALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )
SCOTT WORKMAN,
)
HENRY ROBERTS, and
)
C/O LIPSY,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 14-cv-01305-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Joshua Vasquez, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an
October 30, 2014, incident at Centralia Correctional Center. Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by
multiple correctional officers and then denied medical care for his injuries.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.– The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.– On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

Page 1 of 6

The Complaint
According to the complaint, on October 30, 2014, Plaintiff Vasquez was physically
assaulted by Defendants Sgt. Scott Workman, Lt. Henry Roberts, and C/O Lipsy.

More

specifically, as Plaintiff was being escorted to his dormitory, Workman, Roberts and Lipsy began
verbally harassing him about whether he had paid for his clothes. When Plaintiff questioned the
officers, they cursed at him, handcuffed him, threw him against a van and then collectively
“chicken-winged” him. As the defendant officers continued on with the escort, Sgt. Workman
intentionally tripped Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to fall face-first to the ground.
Plaintiff’s face was cut and scraped, the officers did not get him medical care.

Although

Verbal abuse

continued, and C/O Lipsy threatened to mace Plaintiff. Only after they were directed to do so
did the officers take Plaintiff to the medical unit.

Plaintiff received ten stiches and was

diagnosed as having other minor cuts and scratches, as well as a mild concussion. Plaintiff was
transferred that same day (presumably to Pinckneyville Correctional Center) and placed in
segregation.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro
se action into two counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.

The

designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
Count 1: Defendants Workman, Roberts and Lipsy used excessive force
against Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count 2: Defendants Workman, Roberts and Lipsy denied Plaintiff medical
care for his serious medical injuries, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, as well as nominal, compensatory and punitive
damages.
Page 2 of 6

Discussion
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners from being
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S.CONST., amend. VIII. See also Berry v.

Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 2010).

Eighth Amendment protection extends to

conditions of confinement that pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including health and
safety. See Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2012). When
prison officials are accused of using excessive force against an inmate, “[t]he claimant must
show that officials applied force ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing
harm.’ ” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S.1, 6 (1992)). Prison officials can also violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against
cruel and unusual punishment when their conduct demonstrates “deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs of prisoners.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A medical
condition need not be life-threatening to be serious; rather, it can be a condition that would result
in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated. Gayton v.
McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010).
The allegations in the complaint adequately state Eighth Amendment claims regarding
excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Counts 1 and 2 can,
therefore, proceed against Defendants Workman, Roberts and Lipsy.
Vandalia Correctional Center is also listed as a defendant in the case caption.
However,Vandalia Correctional Center, which is a division of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, is not a “person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, and is not subject to a
Section 1983 suit. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore,
Defendant Vandalia Correctional Center must be dismissed from the action, with prejudice.

Page 3 of 6

Disposition
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that,

for

the

reasons

stated,

VANDALIA

CORRECTIONAL CENTER is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 1 and 2 shall otherwise PROCEED
against Defendants SGT. SCOTT WORKMAN, LT. HENRY ROBERTS, and C/O LIPSY.
The Court is awaiting Plaintiff’s Trust Fund Statement and will rule on his motion for
leave to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 2) by separate order. However, based on his affidavit (see
Doc. 2), Plaintiff’s motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 4) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants SGT. SCOTT WORKMAN, LT.
HENRY ROBERTS, and C/O LIPSY: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive
Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to
each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff.

If a Defendant fails to sign

and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date
the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant, and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to
the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address provided by
Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if
not known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address
shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file

Page 4 of 6

or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is
entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court.
Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date on which a
true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel. Any paper received
by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to
include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, including
consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3).
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate for
disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all parties consent to
such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, notwithstanding
that his application to proceed in forma pauperis may have been granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give
security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into a
stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court,

Page 5 of 6

who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to Plaintiff.
Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 16, 2014
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 6 of 6