Torres v. Wilson et al

Filing 12

Order for Service of Process: Claim 1-5 may proceed as described in this Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD the Warden of Menard to assist with John Doe identification. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and the Warden of Menard. Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a Notice with as much descriptive information as possible about John Does 1-3. Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA protective order. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/5/2025. (kgk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GLEN TORRES,
M12747,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LIEUTENANT WILSON,
SARGEANT LOUIE,
C/O HART,
JOHN DOES 1-3,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 25-cv-57-DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Glen Torres, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
currently detained at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at Menard
Correctional Center (Menard). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants responded
with excessive force when he tried to declare a mental health crisis, they failed to stop
each other during the assault, they placed him in a cell with unconstitutional conditions
of confinement, and they refused him medical care.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint
On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to notify staff that he was feeling
suicidal, but after getting no response he covered his cell window with a sheet and piled
his mattress and legal work in front of the door. An officer doing rounds directed him to
remove the sheet, which he did. (Doc. 1 at 6). The officer then observed the materials in
front of the door and radioed for a tactical (tact) team. Upon arrival an officer stuck an
object through the chuckhole to move the obstruction, and John Doe 1 then began to
deploy mace into the cell without warning. Plaintiff was not given any commands prior
to the mace being deployed. The tact team then opened the door and John Doe 1 and
Defendant Hart slammed Plaintiff to the bed and began to punch him.
Plaintiff alleges John Does 2 and 3 and Defendants Wilson and Louie placed him
in ankle cuffs and then Hart maced him two more times. Plaintiff was drug out of the
cell and dropped on the floor where some of the officers punched him in the back of the
head. Defendant Wilson ordered him to stand, and as he was escorted down the gallery
Defendant Hart intentionally bumped his head into a railing at least three times. Plaintiff
was handcuffed in the infirmary where he was directed to strip, he was maced from head
to toe, and he was then given a new jumpsuit to wear. (Doc. 1 at 7). Medical providers
checked Plaintiff’s vitals but refused any other care. Defendant Wilson told him that he

should not request mental health assistance to avoid further beatings. John Does 2, 3, and
Defendant Hart then maced and punched him again. He alleges he had pain in his face,
neck, and body, as well as migraines and swelling. Plaintiff alleges that in following days
and weeks he was refused medical care and other amenities at Wilson’s direction. (Doc.
1 at 7-8).
Plaintiff alleges he was placed into a cell that lacked running water. He was forced
to live and eat around human waste because he could not use his toilet. He was forced
to relieve himself in used food containers that he passed out of the chuck hole to be
disposed. He claims these conditions endured for a month, and he asked Defendants
Louie and John Doe 1 to restore his water or mattress to no avail. (Doc. 1 at 8). He claims
he also alerted the administration but got no response. He had mace on his skin for an
entire month. (Doc. 1 at 9).
Plaintiff indicates he would like to present claims for excessive force, failure to
intervene, conditions of confinement, and state law battery. In support of his complaint,
he submitted two declarations from a fellow inmate attesting to the facts he set forth.
(Doc. 1 at 12-13).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following
claims:
Claim 1:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and John Does 1-3;

Claim 2:

Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claim against
Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and John Does 1-3;

Claim 3:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and John Does 1-3 for
refusing medical care for Plaintiff’s injuries and/or for
refusing him the ability to wash the mace off of his skin;

Claim 4:

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
against Defendants John Doe 1, Hart, Louie, and Wilson for
allowing Plaintiff’s confinement for an entire month in a
cell without running water or a functioning toilet or
mattress;

Claim 5

State law battery claim against Defendants Wilson, Louie,
Hart, and John Does 1-3.

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. Any claim that is mentioned
in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. See Bell Atl. 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”).
Analysis
An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim requires an inquiry into “whether
force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or [whether it
was] applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
1, 7 (1992). The “core judicial inquiry” for an excessive force claim not the severity of the
injury, but whether the force used was ‘malicious and sadistic.’ Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S.
34, 37 (2010).

A key component of a failure to intervene claim is an individual’s

opportunity to act. Prison officials must intervene to prevent constitutional violations
that they know about and have a realistic opportunity to prevent. Gill v. Milwaukee, 850

F.3d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff’s allegations in Claims 1 and 2 concerning the
physical assault against him are sufficient to proceed against all Defendants. Likewise,
these allegations are sufficient at initial review to sustain the state law battery claim, so
Claim 5 may also proceed.
Plaintiff did not explicitly plead a deliberate indifference claim, but he alleges he
sustained serious injuries and was denied medical or mental health care, despite a mental
health crisis being the issue that triggered the whole series of events. As such, Plaintiff
may also proceed on a deliberate indifference claim against the Defendants as set forth in
Claim 3.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges he was left in a cell with no running water, no functioning
toilet, and no mattress for an entire month. He claims he raised this issue to Defendants
John Doe 1, Wilson, Hart, and Louie, to no avail. At this preliminary juncture, these
allegations are sufficient to sustain a conditions of confinement claim against the named
defendants as pled in Claim 4.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel
Plaintiff has moved for recruited counsel, explaining that he was recently
transferred to a new prison and will no longer be able to secure assistance with his legal
matters from fellow inmates. (Doc. 9). There is no right to the appointment of counsel
in civil matters. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). When presented
with a request to appoint counsel, the Court must consider: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff
made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing
so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to

litigate it himself [.]” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not
provided proof of his own efforts to get counsel, which is a mandatory prerequisite to the
second inquiry about his abilities and the complexity of this case. Eagan v. Dempsey, 987
F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). His Motion must be denied, and if he
wishes to renew it, he must include proof of his own efforts to retain at least three
attorneys. Plaintiff must also include an explanation of why he believes he needs the
assistance of counsel, with a specific focus on tasks in this case that are causing him
difficulty.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Complaint (Doc. 1)
survive against Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and John Does 1-3; and Claim 4 survives
against Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart, and John Doe 1.

The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to ADD the Warden of Menard to this case to assist with John Doe
identification.
Plaintiff must file a Notice within 21 days describing John Does 1-3 with as much
detail as possible. Failure to file this Notice may result in the dismissal of John Does 1-3.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendants Wilson, Louie, Hart,
and the Warden of Menard (official capacity for John Doe identification): (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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to 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 Defendant, and the
Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a 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 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 Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this
Merits Review Order.
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,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party of any address changes; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later
than 14 days after a transfer or other change of 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 failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case
because it will involve the exchange of medical records.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025

/s David W. Dugan
________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved,
the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will
likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers,
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of the defendants
have filed Answers, 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 the defendants before filing any motions, to give the defendants
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’
counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not
submit any evidence to the Court at his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles
that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but
it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening
only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some
relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged
actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is
the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.