Smith v. Sims

Filing 7

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/25/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LESTER SMITH,
#Y21633,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O SIMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17−cv–0774−JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Lester Smith, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly occurred
at St. Clair County Jail. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendant failed to protect him
from a violent attack by other inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). 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.
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

1

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 102627 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line
between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the
pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577
F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.
The Complaint
In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: on July 25, 2016,
Plaintiff was placed in a new housing unit at St. Clair County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Beforehand,
he told Officer Sims that he feared for his life, that he could not go in the housing unit because
he had issues with other inmates, and that putting him in that housing unit would put his life at
risk. Id. Sims disregarded Plaintiff’s fears and forced him to go into the unit. Id. Plaintiff
entered the unit, went to his cell, and five minutes later eight inmates ran into his cell and
severely beat him until he was unconscious. Id. Several minutes later, Plaintiff woke up with
blood all over him coming from his face and head. Id. Plaintiff ran to Officer Rippedo and told
him what happened. Id. Rippedo took Plaintiff into the hallway where Plaintiff told Sergeant
Nicholas what happened. Id. Plaintiff was then taken to the nurse’s office. Id. Nurse Brandi
attempted to stop the bleeding, but when she could not, Plaintiff was rushed to Saint Elizabeth
Hospital in Belleville, Illinois where he was treated by Dr. Hayden Smith. Id. Plaintiff received

2

ten staples in his head and three stitches in his face. Id. He still has a permanent gash on his
head and face. Id. Plaintiff requests monetary damages from the defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Discussion
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro
se action into 1 count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings
and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this
count does not constitute an opinion regarding its merit.
Count 1 –

Sims failed to protect Plaintiff from a violent attack by other inmates in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

As discussed in more detail below, Count 1 will be allowed to proceed past threshold.
Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under the Twombly pleading standard.
In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court held that “prison officials
have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Id. at 833
(internal citations omitted); see also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 2006).
However, not every harm caused by another inmate translates into constitutional liability for the
corrections officers responsible for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In order for a
plaintiff to succeed on a claim for failure to protect, he must show that he is incarcerated under
conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the defendants acted with
“deliberate indifference” to that danger. Id.; Pinkston, 440 F.3d at 889. A plaintiff also must
prove that prison officials were aware of a specific, impending, and substantial threat to his
safety, often 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). “A generalized risk of violence is not
enough, for prisons are inherently dangerous places.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589
3

(7th Cir. 2011) (citing Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2005); Riccardo v.
Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 2004). However, conduct that amounts to negligence or
inadvertence is not enough to state a claim. Pinkston, 440 F.3d at 889 (discussing Watts v.
Laurent, 774 F.2d 168, 172 (7th Cir. 1985)).
In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that Sims ignored Plaintiff’s pleas regarding the danger
he would face if he went into the new housing unit due to problems he had with other inmates
there. When Sims forced Plaintiff to enter the unit, Plaintiff was almost immediately violently
attacked. At this stage, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a failure to protect claim
against Sims, so Count 1 will proceed past threshold.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 2), which is hereby
REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for a decision.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 1 shall PROCEED against C/O SIMS.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
SIMS: (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 the defendant’s place of employment as
identified by Plaintiff.

If the 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 the defendant, and the Court will require the
defendant pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

4

If the defendant can no longer 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 or
disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendant is 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 a United States
Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.

Further, this entire matter shall be

REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge 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, despite the fact that his application
to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
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: September 25, 2017

s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. District Judge

5