United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
DEERIC M. STEVENS, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY F. BUKOWSKI, et al. Defendants.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Jerome Combs
Detention Center in Kankakee, Illinois, brought the present
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth
Amendment claims for failure to protect and deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. The matter comes
before this Court for ruling on the parties' respective
Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 22, 28).
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.56(a). All facts must be construed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all
reasonable inferences must be drawn in his favor. Ogden
v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir.
2010). The party moving for summary judgment must show the
lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In order to be a
“genuine” issue, there must be more than
“some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
was incarcerated at Jerome Combs Detention Center
(“JCDC”) in Kankakee, Illinois as a pretrial
detainee. Defendants are employed at the facility in the
following capacities: Defendant Bukowski was the Sheriff;
Defendant Downey was the Chief of Corrections; Defendants
Schloendorf and Ball were correctional sergeants; and
Defendants Tutt, Moliga, and Garcia were correctional
December 18, 2013, JCDC officials discovered a homemade shank
in the shower stall of Plaintiff's housing pod (known as
“Max-A”). For at least the next eight (8) days, a
lockdown ensued. On December 24, 2013, Plaintiff got into a
fight with two other inmates and suffered a broken jaw. No
weapons were used. Plaintiff testified that, prior to the
fight, he did not know the fight was going to happen, he did
not fear the inmates with whom he fought, and he did not file
any requests or grievances alerting officials to any specific
threat of harm. UMF 19-20. Plaintiff had no prior arguments
with the other inmates. UMF 18. Plaintiff also described his
prior interactions with one of the inmates as
“friendly.” Pl.'s Dep. 53:21-24.
the fight occurred, Defendant Tutt was assigned to Max-A, and
Defendant Garcia was assigned to E-Pod. They were each
responsible for supervising the inmates and conducting
security checks within their assigned pods. (Doc. 28-4 at
1-2). Defendant Moliga was assigned as a “rover”
responsible for transporting inmates and assisting in the
various pods when circumstances so required. Defendant Ball
was assigned to booking. Id.
left his cell at approximately 5:38 a.m. UMF 10. In his
deposition, Plaintiff conceded the accuracy of a portion of
Defendant Moliga's incident report describing the events
that transpired immediately before the altercation ensued.
Pl.'s Dep. 86:19-87:18. The incident report reads as
follows: “At approximately [5:35 a.m., ] I noticed a
detainee in Max walk down from the top tier. I then noticed a
detainee in cell 2 open his door and step outside. Both began
talking and got into fighting positions.” (Doc. 28-3 at
24). Plaintiff was the detainee in cell 2. Pl.'s Dep.
fight commenced. Defendant Tutt called an emergency
(“10-10”) over the radio and locked down the pod.
A third inmate refused to close his door, went down the
stairs, and joined the fight. When Defendant Garcia arrived
at the pod, he, along with Defendants Tutt and Moliga,
entered the pod to stop the fight despite a JCDC policy that
required them to wait. Plaintiff and the two other inmates
complied with verbal commands to stop fighting. The fight
lasted approximately 1 minute and 15 seconds. UMF 44.
submitted a video of the incident. The video shows Plaintiff
and another inmate fighting at approximately 5:39 a.m. The
two separated briefly, and the third inmate joined the fight
shortly thereafter. Defendants are seen inside the pod at
approximately 5:40 a.m. Plaintiff testified that the other
inmate started the fight, but that he later admitted his
involvement and received 15 days in segregation. Pl.'s
Dep. 60:7-11; (Doc. 28-3 at 19).
the fight, Plaintiff requested medical care. The parties do
not dispute that Plaintiff received medical treatment at JCDC
and at an outside hospital. Plaintiff, however, disputes the
timing of the treatment as indicated in JCDC logs and the
hospital records. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff
was admitted to the hospital at 10:23 a.m., following a CT
scan, x-rays, and physician's examination. Plaintiff had
surgery on his jaw a day later.