Smith v. Monti et al
Order for Service of Process upon Karen S. Smoot. Count 1, Danial Monti, and L.U. Walker are DISMISSED without prejudice; the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Monti and Walker as Defendants. Count 2 will proceed against Karen S. Smoot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/19/2021. (ksp)
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #47
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONALD SMITH, #M52307,
L.U. WALKER, and
KAREN S. SMOOT,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00689-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Donald Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently
incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This case is now before the Court for
preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any portion of the Complaint that
is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an
immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): In the early morning
hours of September 11, 2019, Plaintiff fell out of a bottom bunk bed and injured himself on the
property boxes that were stored under the bed. Because of the way the property boxes are stored
in the cells at Shawnee, they stick out about 6-8 inches from the bed. The placement is dangerous
and should be changed. Warden Monti and Warden Walker are responsible for the manner in
which the property boxes are stored.
When Plaintiff fell, he injured his left thumb and big toe on his left foot. The nail bed was
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #48
torn on his thumb, there were lacerations, and the bone was protruding. A male nurse popped the
bone back into place. The lacerations were very deep and needed stitches. The thumb and toe
appeared to be fractured or broken. Karen Smoot refused to schedule an x-ray or stiches. Plaintiff
requested a cane, crutches, cast, or brace, but Smoot also refused to provide any of those items.
Plaintiff is diabetic, which affects the healing process. He did not receive any physical therapy for
his injured thumb and toe. Because he did not receive proper treatment, his thumb and big toe
healed improperly and he cannot bend them.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this
pro se action:
Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Monti and Warden
Walker for unconstitutional conditions of confinement due to the
dangerous placement of the property boxes in Plaintiff’s cell.
Eighth Amendment claim against Smoot for exhibiting deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs related to the
injuries he received when he fell on September 11, 2019.
Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.”).
Plaintiff asserts claims against each defendant in his or her individual and official
capacities. When a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a state official, he must bring suit
against them in his or her individual capacity. Brown v. Budz, 904 F.3d 904, 918 (7th Cir. 2005);
Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir. 1987). And, because a state official sued in his
official capacity is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983, an official capacity claim
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #49
against an individual is really a suite for money damages against the State, which is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed without
Prison conditions that deprive inmates of basic human needs—food, medical care,
sanitation, or physical safety—may violate the Eighth Amendment. James v. Milwaukee Cnty.,
956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992). Two elements are required to establish a constitutional
violation. First, an objective element requires a showing that the conditions deny the inmate “the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” creating an excessive risk to the inmate's health or
safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The second element requires establishing a
defendant's culpable state of mind; that is, deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious
harm to the inmate from those conditions. Id. at 842.
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the placement of the property boxes in his cell do not
suggest an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety. Nor do they suggest deliberate indifference
by the wardens to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. The placement of the property
boxes is not a condition so grave that it deprives Plaintiff of the minimal civilized measures of
life’s necessities. See Richard v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., No. 16-CV-00069-NJR, 2016 WL
2941210, at *5 (S.D. Ill. May 20, 2016) (collecting cases). Because Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth
Amendment claim, Count 1 will be dismissed.
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #50
Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical
needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state a claim, a prisoner must allege
facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the
defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. Plaintiff’s allegations are
sufficient to state a viable deliberate indifference claim in Count 2 against Smoot.
Count 1, Danial Monti, and L.U. Walker are DISMISSED without prejudice; the Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Monti and Walker as Defendants. Count 2 will proceed
against Karen S. Smoot.
The Clerk shall prepare for Karen S. Smoot: (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
Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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 to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If Defendant cannot 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
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #51
Clerk and 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
Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and the 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).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the
standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 19, 2021
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-00689-SMY Document 13 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #52
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendant of your lawsuit and serve
the Defendant with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendant will
enter an appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from
the date of this Order to receive the Defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take
90 days or more. When Defendant has filed an Answer, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order
containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to
wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant before filing any motions, to give the Defendant
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before Defendant’s counsel
has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any
evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.
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?