Goings v. Baldwin et al
Filing
79
ORDER DENYING as MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 22 ), Motions to Correct the Proposed Amended Complaint (Docs. 23 , 25 ), and Motion for Copies (Doc. 74 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/27/2017. (tfs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FREDRICK GOINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16 CV 489 SMY/RJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is the First Amended Complaint and related motions filed by Plaintiff
Fredrick Goings, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (Docs. 22, 23, 25, 72,
74.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on May 2, 2016 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) On July 22, 2016, the Court screened
Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, characterizing his claims as follows:
Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Benefield for
setting in motion the violent attack by inmate David Sesson.
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Butler,
Schoenbeck, Tracy Lee, Jeannette Hecht, Michael Hof, Aaron Runge, Erin Carter,
Lance Phelps, Andrew Dillingham, Andrew Spiller, Brandon Anthony, and other
unidentified defendants.
Count 3: A claim of state law defamation against Benefield for telling other
inmates that Plaintiff dropped a kite about an incident.
Count 4: A claim of state law defamation against Bennette, unidentified
Administrative Review Board Panel members, and former IDOC director
Stolworthy for publishing information that gave the impression that Plaintiff is a
confidential informant.
Count 5: A state law claim of defamation against Bennette, unidentified
Administrative Review Board Panel members, and former IDOC director
Stolworthy that gave the impression that Plaintiff fabricated a story about
receiving a threatening kite.
Count 6: A claim of conspiracy to violate constitutional rights against Bennette,
unknown Administrative Review Board Panel members, and former IDOC
director Stolworthy for conspiring to cover up the attack on Plaintiff.
Count 7: A state law claim of battery against Big E for grabbing Plaintiff by the
neck and pushing his face into a wall.
Count 8: An Eight Amendment excessive force claim against Big E for grabbing
Plaintiff by the neck and pushing his face into a wall.
Count 9: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference towards
medical needs against Charlotte Miget, unidentified healthcare staff, and an
unidentified sergeant for denying Plaintiff medical care following the attack by
inmate David Sesson.
Count 10: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference towards
medical needs against Jones and unidentified healthcare and correctional staff for
refusing Plaintiff medical care following the Big E attack.
Count 11: A Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim against Benefield
and unidentified correctional staff assigned for performing a search of Plaintiff’s
cell.
Count 12: A Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim against Spiller, Big
E, and unidentified correctional staff for subjecting Plaintiff to multiple strip
searches.
Count 13: An Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Big
E, Jones, and unidentified healthcare and correctional staff for the conditions of
Cell 503.
Count 14: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference towards
medical needs against Big E, Jones, and unidentified healthcare and correctional
staff for denying access to blood pressure medication.
Count 15: An Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Jones
for the conditions of Cell 503.
Count 16: A First Amendment claim of retaliation against Benefield for
harassing Plaintiff in retaliation for filing grievances.
2
Count 17: A state law claim of intentional interference with prospective business
opportunities against Benefield for starting a rumor that Plaintiff dropped a kite
on another inmate, as such a rumor would be detrimental because Plaintiff is an
attorney and is expected to maintain strict confidence and confidentiality.
Count 18: A state law claim of intentional interference with prospective business
opportunities against Bennette, Stolworthy, and unknown ARB members for
publishing a lie in the correspondence denying Plaintiff protective custody that
had the effect of damaging Plaintiff’s reputation as an attorney.
Count 19: A state law claim of intentional interference with prospective business
opportunities against Galioto for publishing information in Plaintiff’s medical
records that suggests Plaintiff lacks self-control or that he believes his own family
is trying to kill him, which would negatively affect perceptions of Plaintiff’s
competence.
Count 20: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Benefield, Butler, Schoenbeck, Tracy Lee, Jeannette Hecht, Michael Hof, Aaron
Runge, Erin Carter, Lance Phelps, Andrew Dillingham, Andrew Spiller, Brandon
Anthony based on harassment, abuse, retaliation, and systemic road blocks.
(Doc. 11.) The Court allowed Counts 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 20 to proceed, but dismissed
all other counts. (Id.) The Court severed into a separate action the claims pertaining to Big E,1
Spiller and Jones – Counts 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14. See Goings v. Jones, 3:16-cv-00833-NJR-DGW.
Following the Screening Order, only Counts 1, 2, 9, and 20 remained.
Plaintiff submitted a proposed nineteen-count amended complaint on September 30,
2016. (Doc. 22.) On February 28, 2017, he submitted a second proposed amended complaint.
(Doc. 72.) “[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the new complaint supersedes all
previous complaints and controls the case from that point forward.” Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d
727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus, the first proposed amended complaint (Doc. 22) and related
motions (Docs. 23, 25) are MOOT.
In the second proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff’s claims are as follows:
Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Benefield for
setting in motion the violent attack by inmate David Sesson.
1
Plaintiff later identified “Big E” as Lt. Frank Eovaldi. (Doc. 43,)
3
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
safety against Benefield for setting in motion the violent attack by inmate David
Session.
Count 3: An Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force and unconstitutional
conditions of confinement against Benefield, Eovaldi, and Jones for subjecting
Plaintiff to dangerous or restrictive conditions and guard brutality.2
Count 4: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Butler,
Schoenbeck, Tracy Lee, Jeannette Hecht, Michael Hof, Aaron Runge, Erin Carter,
Lance Phelps, Andrew Dillingham, Andrew Spiller, and Brandon Anthony.3
Count 5: A claim of state law defamation against Benefield for telling other
inmates that Plaintiff dropped a kite about an incident and referring to Plaintiff as
a rat and stool pigeon.
Count 6: A claim of state law defamation against Bennette and former Illinois
Department of Corrections Director Stolworthy for written findings following a
protective custody hearing.
Count 7: A state law claim of battery against Frank Eovaldi for grabbing Plaintiff
by the neck and pushing his face into a wall.
Count 8: A state law claim of assault against Frank Eovaldi for lunging towards
Plaintiff.
Count 9: An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Eovaldi for
grabbing Plaintiff by the neck and pushing his face into a wall.
Count 10: An Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force and unconstitutional
conditions of confinement against Eovaldi.
Count 11: A claim against Eovaldi for violating 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30 by
using unnecessary force against Plaintiff.
Count 12: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference towards
medical needs against Warden Butler for denying Plaintiff medical care following
the attack by inmate David Sesson.
2
Count 3 lists “CO Benefield, Lt. Frank Eovaldi, Anthony Jones, et al.” as defendants for the excessive force claim.
Plaintiff purports to name more than fifty defendants in the proposed second amended complaint. Due the
impossibility of ascertaining the defendants referenced by “et al,” the Court will construe the claims in the second
amended complaint as involving only those expressly named.
3
Although the Court has omitted references to the unidentified defendants here, the Court will allow the claims
against such defendants to remain at this stage of the proceedings to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to identify them.
4
Count 13: A Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim against Spiller and
Eovaldi for subjecting Plaintiff to multiple strip searches.
Count 14: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference towards
medical needs against Eovaldi and Jones for denying access to blood pressure
medication.
Count 15: An Eighth Amendment claim of unconstitutional confitions of
confinement against Eovaldi and Jones for forcing Plaintiff to remain in Cell 503.
Count 16: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Benefield for setting in motion the attack by inmate David Sesson.
Count 17: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Butler, Spiller, Tracy Lee, Schoenbeck, Jeannette Hecht, Michael Hof, Aaron
Runge, Erin Carter, Andrew Dillingham, and Brandon Anthony for allowing the
attack by inmate David Sesson.
Count 18: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Galioto for publishing misrepresentations regarding Plaintiff in his medical
records.
Count 19: A state law claim of false imprisonment against Eovaldi for subjecting
Plaintiff to segregation without due process.
Count 20: A First Amendment claim of retaliation against Benefield for
harassing Plaintiff in retaliation for filing grievances.
Discussion
Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 16, and 17
Counts 1, 4, 12, 16, and 17 are substantially similar to claims that survived the screening
of the initial complaint. Plaintiff has made no changes requiring further review of these counts.
Therefore, Counts 1, 4, 12, 16 and 17 shall proceed.
Plaintiff also asserts Counts 2 and 3 against Defendant Benefield. In Count 2, Plaintiff
alleges an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety against
Benefield for setting in motion the violent attack by inmate David Session. In Count 3, Plaintiff
alleges an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force and unconstitutional conditions of
5
confinement against Benefield for subjecting Plaintiff to dangerous or restrictive conditions and
guard brutality. Count 2 duplicates Count 1 and is dismissed. See Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d
749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010) (stating that deliberate indifference is an element of a failure to protect
claim). However, Count 3 articulates Eighth Amendment theories that are distinguishable from
Count 1. Therefore, Count 3 as it pertains to Defendant Benefield shall proceed.
Counts 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19
Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint includes several claims related to the
conduct of Eovaldi, Jones and Spiller, including Counts 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 19. In
the initial screening order, the Court found that the counts relating to Eovaldi, Jones and Spiller
were not sufficiently related to the claims related to the David Sesson incident. As a result, the
Court severed the counts pertaining to Eovaldi, Jones and Spiller into a separate action. Because
the claims related to Eovaldi, Jones and Spiller have been severed into a separate action, Counts
3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 19 are dismissed.4 Similarly, because the allegations relating to
Dr. Galioto’s medical treatment also relate to the alleged attack by Eovaldi, Count 18 is also
dismissed.
Count 20
In Count 20, Plaintiff seeks to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendant Benefield. In the initial screening order, the Court dismissed this count on the basis
that Plaintiff failed to identify the specific protected conduct that motivated the alleged
retaliation. (Doc. 11 at 18.) The proposed second amended complaint contains additional
allegations in support of this claim that lists several specific grievances. However, Plaintiff does
not allege that these grievances motivated the alleged retaliation. Rather, he simply alleges that
the identified grievances document “a pattern and campaign of harassment.” Because Plaintiff
4
Count 3 is dismissed only to the extent it pertains to Defendants Eovaldi and Jones.
6
has not cured the deficiencies identified in the initial screening order, Count 20 will be
dismissed.
Counts 5 and 6
Plaintiff also seeks to reinstate Counts 5 and 6, which assert state law defamation claims
under state law. The Court dismissed Counts 5 and 6 in the initial screening order for failure to
state a claim.5 Regarding Count 5, the Court dismissed the claim based on the statute of
limitations.
The Court dismissed Count 6 on grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege that
Defendants Bennette and Stolworthy published the defamatory information to a third party – an
essential element of a defamation claim. Counts 5 and 6 were also dismissed based on the
absence of any federal cause of action for defamation and the absence of any reference to state
law or supplemental jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has attempted to cure the deficiencies by referencing the supplemental
jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Federal courts have “supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28
U.S.C. § 1367. The claims must “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, such that the
relationship between the federal claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire
action before the court comprises but one constitutional case.” Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193
F.3d 496, 500 (7th Cir. 1999). “[A] loose factual connection between the claims is generally
sufficient.” McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 760 F.3d 674, 683 (7th Cir. 2014).
In Count 5, Plaintiff alleges that Benefield defamed him by telling other inmates that
Plaintiff “dropped a kite” about an incident and by referring to Plaintiff as a rat and stool pigeon.
5
In the initial complaint, these counts were labeled as Counts 3 and 4. (See Doc. 1.)
7
Plaintiff also alleges that the defamatory conduct continued until October 2015. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff has established a loose factual connection between Count 5 and his federal
claims and has adequately addressed the timeliness issue identified in the initial Screening Order.
Therefore, Count 5 may proceed.
In Count 6, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Benton and Stolworthy defamed him by
publishing findings to other members of the Administrative Review Board to cover up the
conduct of Benefield and the David Sesson attack and to deny Plaintiff protective custody.
Because Plaintiff has alleged at least a loose factual connection, Count 6 may also proceed.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The remaining
defendants consist of Benefield, Kim Butler, Josh Schoenbeck, Tracy K. Lee, Jeannette C.
Hecht, Michael Hof, Aaron Runge, Erin Carter, Lance Phelps, Andrew Dillingham, Andrew W.
Spiller, Brandon M. Anthony, Stolworthy, and Bennette. The unidentified defendants also
remain.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Counts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 are
DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may proceed on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 16, and 17.
The parties are DIRECTED to refer to these counts in all future filings.
Defendants are
ORDERED to file an answer or responsive pleading within thirty days.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 22), Motions to Correct the Proposed
Amended Complaint (Docs. 23, 25), and Motion for Copies (Doc. 74) are DENIED as MOOT.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 27, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle
9
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?