Mason v. Spiller et al
Filing
10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/22/2017. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICKEY DEANGELO MASON,
#R04326,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 3:17-cv-00867-DRH
WILLIAM A. SPILLER,
ORANGE CRUSH OFFICERS,
and KIMBERLY BUTLER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Mickey Mason, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 25, 2017, he filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), which sets forth
unrelated claims for constitutional deprivations against different groups of
defendants.
(Doc. 6).
In its initial Order, the Court identified eight separate
claims. (Doc. 9, p. 7). The Court immediately dismissed five claims (i.e., Counts
1, 3, 6, 7, and 8) and severed two others (i.e., Counts 4 and 5). (Doc. 9, pp. 715). Count 2 is the only remaining claim in this case. (Doc. 9, p. 15).
Count 2 is now subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It
involves an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against C/O William
Spiller and several unknown Orange Crush Officers who allegedly humiliated and
assaulted Plaintiff at Menard on April 1, 2016. (Doc. 9, p. 15). Section 1915A
provides, in pertinent part:
(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.”
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, 1026-27 (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). The
claim survives screening and shall receive further review.
Amended Complaint
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was repeatedly
assaulted at Menard on April 1, 2016. (Doc. 6, p. 5). On that date, the Orange
Crush Tactical Team ordered the inmates to walk in a “tight line.” Id. Plaintiff
was forced to walk with his genitals pressed against the buttocks of another
inmate, in a position referred to as “nuts to butts.” Id.
When he attempted to distance himself from the inmate who was walking
directly in front of him, an Orange Crush Officer allegedly assaulted Plaintiff.
(Doc. 6, p. 5). Although he does not describe the assault in any detail, Plaintiff
indicates that he was cuffed and posed no threat to the officer at the time. Id.
Plaintiff also describes immediate bruising that developed as a result of the
assault. Id.
As Plaintiff walked up the stairs, he was met by William Spiller. (Doc. 6, p.
6). Spiller was dressed in orange crush clothing and equipped with tactical gear.
Id. Spiller began choking Plaintiff “until he turned red” in the face. Id. The
officer then shoved Plaintiff’s head down forcefully. Id. Plaintiff claims that the
assaults caused injuries to his head and neck, including a laceration and bruising.
(Doc. 6, pp. 5-6).
Although Plaintiff immediately sought medical attention for his injuries and
continued to do so in the days that followed, he named no defendants in
connection with a claim for his untreated injuries, and that claim is considered
dismissed without prejudice from this action.
(Doc. 6, pp. 5-6).
This case
focuses only on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Spiller and the Orange Crush Officers for humiliating Plaintiff and assaulting him
on April 1, 2016. (Doc. 6, pp. 5-6; Doc. 9, p. 15).
Discussion
In its initial screening Order, this Court characterized Count 2 as an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against the Orange Crush Officers and
Officer Spiller for using excessive force against Plaintiff on April 1, 2016. (Doc. 9,
p. 7). Plaintiff’s claim arises under the Eighth Amendment, which proscribes the
cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners. U.S. CONST., amend. VIII. An Eighth
Amendment claim may be brought against a prison official who punishes an
inmate without penological justification. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010);
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir. 2000). Such claims typically arise
where a plaintiff is subjected to excessive force. See, e.g., Washington v. Hively,
695 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2012) (Eighth Amendment claim typically arises in
the context of “rough or otherwise improper handling that causes excessive pain
or other harm.”). The “core judicial inquiry” in such cases is “whether force was
applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm.” See Davis v. Wessel, 792 F.3d 793, 804 (7th Cir.
2015) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992)).
Count 2 shall
proceed against the Orange Crush Officer and Officer Spiller for their alleged use
of excessive force against Plaintiff on April 1, 2016.
An Eighth Amendment claim may also arise for “[a]n unwanted touching of
a person’s private parts, intended to humiliate the victim or gratify the assailant’s
sexual desires . . . whether or not the force exerted by the assailant is significant.”
Washington, 695 F.3d at 643 (citing Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 650 (7th
Cir. 2009); Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939-40 (7th Cir. 2003); Farmer v.
Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254, 1260 (10th Cir. 2002); Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335,
1338 (8th Cir. 1997); Boddie v. Schneider, 105 F.3d 857, 860-61 (2d Cir. 1997)).
Some offenses may support an Eight Amendment claim, even when they involve
no touching at all. Washington, 695 F.3d at 643. The allegations in the Amended
Complaint support an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in Count 2
against the Orange Crush Officers who forced Plaintiff to walk “nuts to butts” with
other inmates on April 1, 2016.
Identification of Unknown Defendants
The fact that Plaintiff cannot identify the Orange Crush Officers who forced
him to walk “nuts to butts” with other inmates or the officer who assaulted him is
not fatal to his claim at this stage. Correctional officers may not escape liability,
simply because of a plaintiff’s inability to identify the particular officers who
violated his constitutional rights. Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004)
(reversing dismissal of claims where the prisoner plaintiff had been unable to
identify defendants and remanding for finding of facts). “[I]dentification of the
responsible party may be impossible without pretrial discovery.”
Billman v.
Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 789 (7th. Cir. 1995). Where a prisoner’s
complaint states specific allegations describing conduct of individual prison staff
members sufficient to raise a constitutional claim, but the names of those
defendants are not known, the prisoner should have the opportunity to engage in
limited discovery to ascertain the identity of those defendants.
Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff shall be
allowed to proceed with Count 2 against the unknown Orange Crush Officers, who
humiliated and/or assaulted him on April 1, 2016.
However, Plaintiff must
identify the defendants with particularity before service of the Amended
Complaint can be made on them.
Menard’s warden is already named as a defendant in this action, in her
official capacity. The Warden shall be responsible for responding to discovery
aimed at identifying these unknown defendants. Guidelines for discovery will be
set by the United States Magistrate Judge. Once the names of the Orange Crush
Officers are discovered, Plaintiff shall file a motion to substitute each newly
identified defendant in place of the generic designations in the case caption and
throughout the Amended Complaint.
Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. 1 Typically, the Court names the warden as a
defendant, in his or her official capacity only, for purposes of carrying out any
injunctive relief that is ordered. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315
(7th Cir. 2011). In this case, Plaintiff already named Warden Kimberly Butler as a
defendant in her official capacity. However, Jacqueline Lashbrook has replaced
Kimberly Butler as the warden of Menard. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court shall substitute Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook
1
To be clear, Plaintiff seeks no immediate relief in connection with Count 2. He has not
invoked Rule 65(a) or (b), Fed. R. Civ. P., or mentioned any need for a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction. If he believes that more immediate injunctive
relief is necessary, Plaintiff should file a separate Rule 65 motion setting forth his request
for relief and the reasons he seeks it.
(in her official capacity only) in place of Warden Kimberly Butler as a defendant.
In addition to identifying the unknown Orange Crush Officers, Warden Lashbrook
shall also be responsible for implementing any injunctive relief that is ordered in
this action.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3), which shall be
REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for a decision.
Disposition
The Clerk is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Defendant JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK (official capacity only) in place of Defendant KIMBERLY
BUTLRE (official capacity only) as a party in CM/ECF. Defendant Lashbrook
shall be responsible for responding to discovery (informal or otherwise) aimed at
identifying the unknown Orange Crush Officers involved in this matter and
carrying out any injunctive relief that is ordered in this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 2 is subject to further review
against Defendants WILLIAM SPILLER and the ORANGE CRUSH OFFICERS
(once identified) who were involved in the incident alleged in the Amended
Complaint. As to COUNT 2, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for the Defendants
WILLIAM SPILLER, ORANGE CRUSH OFFICERS (once identified), and
WARDEN JACQUELINE LASHBROOK (official capacity only): (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 Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), 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 or disclosed by the Clerk.
Service shall not be made on Defendants UNKNOWN ORANGE CRUSH
OFFICERS until such time as Plaintiff has identified them by name in a properly
filed motion for substitution of parties.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that it is his
responsibility to provide the Court with the names and service addresses for these
individuals.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading
to the Amended 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, including a decision on
the pending Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3).
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 § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of
the costs, even though his application to proceed in forma pauperis was 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, 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.
Signed this 22nd day of September, 2017.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.09.22
17:05:31 -05'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?