The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the defendants' summary judgment motion , the plaintiff's response  and the defendants' reply .
The plaintiff, Earl Sidney Davis is civilly committed to the custody of the Illinois Department of Human Services ("Department") pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 207/1 et seq. (West 2008) ("SVP Act"). Davis brings this civil rights action against various security officials for constitutional violations alleged to have occurred at the Rushville Treatment & Detention Facility ("Rushville TDF") on September 26, 2006. See complaint . On that date, Davis was restrained and taken to a segregated room after he failed to comply with a direct order during an emergency security situation. Davis claims that the defendants' actions were arbitrary or excessively punitive in the following ways: (1) by allowing him to be momentarily exposed naked to residents and staff; (2) by placing him in a segregated room for two days; (3) by placing him in handcuff restraints; and (4) by exposing him to inhumane conditions of confinement in secure management status. Id. Davis next alleges that the defendant, Dougherty applied force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing him harm when she escorted him in handcuff restraints to a segregated room. Id. Finally, Davis alleges that the defendants denied him medical care after he was escorted to a segregated room. Id.
The defendants move for summary judgment on the following grounds. First, Davis's conditions of confinement were reasonably related to institutional security. Second, the use of force complained of was the type authorized for security purposes in a good-faith effort to maintain discipline. Third, there is insufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that Davis suffered from a serious medical need and that Defendants were deliberately indifferent. Fourth, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS*fn1
1. Davis is civilly committed to the custody of the Department at the Rushville TDF pursuant to the SVP Act. (Def's. Ex. D; Davis Dep. Trans. dated Sept. 24, 2008, p. 6, line 17 - p. 6, line 22.)
2. As of September 26, 2006, Defendant Williams was employed as a Security Therapy Aid-IV at the Rushville TDF. (Defs.' Ex. C; Williams Aff., ¶ 1.)
3. As of September 26, 2006, Defendant Dougherty was employed as a Security Therapy Aid-II at the Rushville TDF. (Defs.' Ex. B; Dougherty Aff., ¶ 1.)
4. As of September 26, 2006, Defendant McAdory was employed as a Shift Commander at the Rushville TDF. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 1.)
5. The Department provides by rule for the nature of the Rushville TDF, the level of care to be provided in the Rushville TDF, and the custody and discipline of persons placed in the Rushville TDF. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 2.)
6. The large majority of residents in the Rushville TDF have repeatedly engaged in acts of sexual violence, some with adults. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 3.)
7. There is an established history of residents acting in threatening and assaultive ways toward the staff and other residents. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 3.)
8. There have been numerous assaults on staff and between residents, resulting in the implementation of a variety of measures, all of which are monitored and enforced by trained personnel, to maintain institutional security, internal order, and ensure the protection of residents and staff. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 3.)
9. Handcuffs, security belts, and/or leg irons may be used to restrain any resident when the resident is confined in special or secure management status, or is confined pending investigation, and needs to be moved within the facility. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 4.)
10. On September 26, 2006, a physical altercation broke out between two residents in Charlie Unit at the Rushville TDF. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5; Defs.' Ex. B; Dougherty Aff., ¶ 2.)
11. As the residents who were involved in the fight were physically restrained by security staff, all other residents who were present in Charlie Unit were ordered to return to their rooms for lock-up until the emergency security situation was resolved, pursuant to standard protocol. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5; Defs.' Ex. B; Dougherty Aff., ¶ 2.)
12. Residents then began yelling to distract staff. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5.)
13. Defendant McAdory approached the shower area because it sounded to him like the yelling came from that direction. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5.)
14. Defendant McAdory repeatedly asked the resident who was in the shower to identify himself, to which the resident (later identified as Davis) replied, "Why?" (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5; Defs.' Ex. B; Dougherty Aff., ¶ 2.)
15. After repeated attempts to identify Davis during the emergency security situation, Defendant McAdory ordered Davis to turn off the water and to get dressed. (Defs.' Ex. A; McAdory Aff., ¶ 5; Defs.' Ex. B; Dougherty Aff., ¶ 2.)
16. Defendant McAdory pulled the shower curtain back. (Defs.' Ex. D; Davis Dep. Trans. dated Sept. 24, 2008, ...