Hampton v. Baldwin et al

Filing 126

ORDER granting 122 Motion to Dismiss. Official capacity claims against John Baldwin and John Varga DISMISSED. Both Defendants will remain in the case in their individual capacities. See Order for specifics. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 2/6/2020. (anp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEON HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-550-NJR

JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief filed by Defendants John Baldwin 1 and Warden John Varga (Doc. 122).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Hampton’s claims which seek only injunctive and
declaratory relief are now moot because she has been released from the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Hampton had until August 29, 2019 to file a
response but failed to do so. The Court considers the failure to respond an admission of
the facts of Defendants’ motion. SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c). See also Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995) (a failure to
respond constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed material facts).
Hampton, a transgender inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated her
constitutional rights while she was incarcerated at various correctional centers within
IDOC (Doc. 64). The Amended Complaint consists of nine counts alleging violation of the

1

The Court notes that any official capacity claims would be against the new IDOC Director, Rob Jeffreys.

Page 1 of 3

Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Illinois Hate Crimes Act, and Illinois state law regarding intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Hampton’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims (Counts
1 and 2), Americans with Disabilities Act claim (Count 6), and her Monell claim (Count 7)
were brought against Baldwin and Varga in their official capacities. Further, Hampton’s
Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim (Count 3), Eighth Amendment cruel and
unusual punishment claim (Count 4), and Illinois Hate Crimes Act claim (Count 8) were
also brought against Baldwin and Varga in their official capacities, as well as other
defendants in their individual capacities.
It is undisputed that Hampton was released from IDOC custody on July 8, 2019
(Doc. 122, p. 1). It is well established that when a prisoner is transferred or released from
IDOC custody her claims for injunctive relief are moot unless she can demonstrate that
she is likely to be retransferred. Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir.2012) (Once
inmate is released from prison, his request for injunctive relief was rendered moot);
Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996); Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th
Cir. 2008). Here, Hampton has been released from custody and she has not alleged that
she is likely to be placed back in IDOC custody. Similarly, Hampton’s claims for
declaratory relief against Baldwin and Varga in their official capacities are also now moot.
Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732, 743 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Higgason, 83 F.3d at 811).
Because Hampton is no longer an inmate at IDOC, the Court FINDS that her claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are moot.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss and the claims against
John Baldwin and John Varga, in their official capacities, are DISMISSED without
Page 2 of 3

prejudice. John Baldwin and John Varga remain in the case, in their individual capacities,
for purposes of Hampton’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (Count 9).
The case shall now proceed on the merits as to the following claims:
Count Three:

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against
Defendants John Does 1-4, Officer Burley, Officer Gee,
IA Officer Manzano, and IA Officer Blackburn in their
individual capacities for failing to ensure Plaintiff’s
safety at Dixon and Lawrence despite their knowledge
that she is vulnerable to abuse and sexual assault.

Count Four:

Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
claim against Defendants Warden Varga and Warden
Kink, in their individual capacities, for placing Plaintiff
in segregation, thereby exacerbating her serious
mental health problems.

Count Five:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Officer Burley, Lt. Doering, and Sgt. Kunde.

Count Eight:

Claim under the Illinois Hate Crimes Act against
Officer Burley in his individual capacity for allegedly
physically assaulting Plaintiff due to her gender and
sexual orientation.

Count Nine:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
against Director Baldwin, Warden Varga, Warden
Kink, Lt. Doering, Sgt. Kunde, and Officer Burley in
their individual capacities.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 6, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3