Kitterman v. Dunne et al

Filing 131

ORDER granting 118 Motion Merit Review of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and for Extension of Time to File Answer. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 5/14/2020. (klh)

Case 3:18-cv-00114-GCS Document 131 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #717

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SHANE KITTERMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL DUNNING,
LLYOD EDWARDS,
JERID PICKFORD,
BRIAN BANKS,
JEFFERY DENNISON,
JOHN BALDWIN,
LU WALKER, and
OFFICER SAMMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-0114-GCS

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendant Edwards’s motion for review of Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint and for extension of time to file answer (Doc. 118). Based on
the following, the Court grants the motion and designates the following claims in the
First Amended Complaint as surviving merit review.
In Kitterman v. Dennison, Case No. 17-cv-290-SMY (S.D. Ill.) (“Original Action”),
Plaintiff Shane A. Kitterman, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who was housed at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”), brought suit

Page 1 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00114-GCS Document 131 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #718

pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights. The deprivations
allegedly occurred at Shawnee and Big Muddy Correctional Centers. Pursuant to George
v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), two Eighth Amendment claims directed against
officers at Shawnee (Count 8 directed against Officer Dunning and Count 9 directed
against Officer Dunning, Officer Samms, and Officer Edwards) were severed from that
initial action to form the basis for this cause of action, Case No. 18-cv-114-GCS.
Following preliminary review of those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court, as outlined in its Severance Order (Doc. 1), designated the following counts to be
severed in this pro se action:
Count 8:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Officer Dunning for allegedly fondling
Plaintiff’s genitals during a routine strip search at
Shawnee sometime between April and July 2017.

Count 9:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Officer Dunning, Officer Samms, and Officer
Edwards for subjecting Plaintiff to a “deadlock” on July
2017, by placing him in his cell without food, water,
exercise or contact for an unspecified period of time.

Count 9 was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief (finding the
allegations insufficient). Kitterman was allowed to proceed on Count 8. (Doc. 7).
On June 14, 2019, the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and over Defendant Dunning’s objection, granted in part and
denied in part Kitterman’s motion to file First Amended Compliant (Doc. 98).1 That same

1

The Court dismissed with prejudice the Illinois Department of Corrections as Kitterman cannot
Page 2 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00114-GCS Document 131 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #719

day, the First Amended Complaint was filed.2 (Doc. 99). The First Amended Complaint
expanded his claims and added defendants which Kitterman alleges were responsible for
additional unconstitutional conduct arising out of his original claim against Defendant
Dunning.
After a review of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Kitterman
has stated the following claims, and that such claims are neither futile nor unduly delayed
or prejudicial.3
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dunning
for allegedly fondling Kitterman’s genitals during a routine strip
search at Shawnee sometime between April and July 2017.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dunning,
Samms, and Edwards for subjecting Kitterman to a “deadlock” on
July 13, 2017, by placing him in his cell without food, water, exercise
or contact for an unspecified period of time.

Count 3:

First Amendment retaliation claim against Dunning, Edwards, and
Samms for reporting the alleged sexual assault in violation of the
First Amendment.

Count 4:

Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against Dennison and
Baldwin.

Count 5:

Civil conspiracy claim against Dunning, Edwards, Pickford, Banks,
Samms, and Walker.

Count 6:

State law claim of assault and/or battery against Dunning for
allegedly fondling Kitterman’s genitals.

maintain a suit for damages against it.
2
The Court notes that the filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint supersedes and renders void
the original. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004).
3

The Court has renumbered the original counts for clarification.
Page 3 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00114-GCS Document 131 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #720

Count 7:

State law claim of assault against Dunning for allegedly throwing
another inmate’s property at Kitterman.

The Court notes that Kitterman sues the Defendants in their individual and official
capacities but seeks only monetary damages (compensatory damages of $1,000,000 and
punitive damages of $1,000,000). (Doc. 99, p. 15, 51). When a plaintiff seeks monetary
damages against a state official, he must bring the suit against the official in his or her
individual capacity. See Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir. 1987). Thus, the
claims against the Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for merit review of Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint and for extension of time to file answer (Doc. 118). The Court
ALLOWS Defendants Dunning, Edwards, Pickford, Banks, Dennison, Walker, and
Baldwin 21 days from the entry of this Order to respond to the claims outlined herein.
Further, the Clerk of the Court shall prepare for Defendant Samms the following:
(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 of the Court is DIRECTED to mail
these forms, a copy of the First Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order to
Defendant Samms’s place of employment as identified by Kitterman. If Defendant
Samms 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 Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant Samms to
pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Page 4 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00114-GCS Document 131 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #721

Procedure. Defendant Samms is ORDERED to file a timely and appropriate responsive
pleading to the Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Finally, as previously noted many times throughout this litigation, Kitterman is
ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of the 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 of a transfer or other change in address. Failure to comply with this Order
will cause delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in the dismissal
of this action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 14, 2020.

Digitally signed
by Judge Sison
Date:
2020.05.14
11:51:42 -05'00'
________________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5