Curry v. Butler et al

Filing 257

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation (Doc. 249 ): Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 241 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Brandon Anthony, William Rees, Anthony Williams, and Kimberly Butler and DENIED as to Defendants Kent Brookman, Cory Bump, Shaun Gee, and William Spiller. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/25/2019. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

STEVEN CURRY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-820-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 249), recommending the denial of the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Kent Brookman, Cory Bump, Shaun Gee, and William
Spiller (Doc. 241). Defendants filed a timely objection (Doc. 15) 1. For the following reasons,
Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
Background
Plaintiff Steven Curry was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard") from
August 2013 until April 2018. At some point prior to his incarceration at Menard, Plaintiff was
affiliated with the Black Disciples gang, but later cut ties with them. In January 2015, Plaintiff
received a threatening letter through the regular mail that referred to Plaintiff as a “homo rapist”
and told him to check into “PC” (protective custody). The letter also stated, “see you as soon as
you get out of seg” and was signed “The Boyz”.
1

Judge Daly granted the Motion with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Brandon
Anthony, William Rees, and Anthony Williams and found Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against Kimberly
Butler moot. Plaintiff has not objected to Judge Daly’s Report. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Anthony, Rees, Williams, and Butler are DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment accordingly at the close of this case.

On February 12, 2016, four inmates affiliated with the Black Disciples gang (inmates
Tucker, Hoskins, Brown and Willis) attacked Plaintiff in the gym washroom. Plaintiff did not
notify anyone of assault until after he was assaulted a second time by Tucker and Hoskins on
February 13, 2016 while walking in the chow line.
Defendants interviewed Plaintiff following the assaults. Plaintiff made a request to each
defendant to either be transferred or to be kept separate from the inmates who attacked him.
Inmates on a keep separate from list may be housed in the same cellhouse but should not be on the
same gallery. Despite his requests, Plaintiff remained on the same gallery as Brown, Willis,
Tucker, and Hoskins. Defendants also did not place the inmates on Plaintiff’s keep separate from
list.
On March 27, 2016, Plaintiff and Tucker were in the prison yard. Although they were
separated by a fence, they could still see and hear each other. Plaintiff heard Tucker yell at another
inmate, inmate Taylor, to “take care of that business.” Inmate Taylor then assaulted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not know Taylor before the attack but later learned that he was a member of the Black
Disciples gang.
In her Report, Judge Daly found that there was evidence Plaintiff had requested to be kept
separate from Tucker, Hoskins, Brown and Willis, but was never fully separated from them. She
also found that there was enough evidence in the record to establish that Defendants Spiller, Bump,
Brookman, and Gee had knowledge of the assaults carried out by inmates Tucker, Hoskins, Brown
and Willis, and thus, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim.
Discussion
The undersigned must undertake a de novo review of the Report because a timely objection
was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); see also Govas
Page 2 of 4

v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). De novo review requires the district judge to “give
fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made” and make a
decision “based on an independent review of the evidence and arguments without giving any
presumptive weight to the magistrate judge’s conclusion.” Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d
651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court “may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s
recommended decision.” Id.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires that
prison officials “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates.” Santiago v. Walls,
599 F.3d 749, 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (other
citations omitted)). To succeed on a failure to protect claim, a plaintiff needs to show: (1) he was
incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and, (2) that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. Id.
With respect to the first element, a plaintiff must show not only that he experienced, or was
exposed to, a serious harm, but also that there was a substantial risk beforehand that serious harm
might actually occur. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 910 (7th Cir. 2005). The second element is
more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate and requires an inquiry into a defendant's state of mind.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. In particular, a prison official may be held liable only if he knows an
inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm and “disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. “In cases involving inmate-on-inmate violence, ‘a prisoner
normally provides actual knowledge of impending harm by showing that he complained to prison
officials about a specific threat to his safety’.” Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92 (7th Cir. 1996).
Defendants object to Judge Daly’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence they knew
of and disregarded a threat to Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants contend there was no basis to
keep Plaintiff off the same gallery as the other inmates and that Plaintiff was not necessarily at a
Page 3 of 4

risk of harm by being housed near some of his enemies. Defendants also assert that there is no
evidence Plaintiff was harmed as a result of being housed near his enemies.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, genuine issues of material fact
exist regarding whether Defendants failed to respond to a known danger of assault that was brought
to their attention by Plaintiff and therefore failed to take reasonable steps to protect him. The
evidence establishes that Plaintiff requested to be kept separate from inmates Hoskins, Tucker,
Brown and Willis following the February 2016 assault. Despite his requests, Plaintiff and his
attackers remained housed on the same gallery and Defendants failed to place those individuals on
Plaintiff’s keep separate from list. Because of Plaintiff’s proximity with his attackers, Tucker was
able to direct another inmate to attack Plaintiff. When viewed as a whole, this evidence is
sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
After thoroughly reviewing the record before it, the Court finds Judge Daly's factual
findings and analysis to be thorough and accurate and ADOPTS her Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 249) in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 241)
is DENIED as to Defendants Spiller, Gee, Brookman, and Bump.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 25, 2019
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4