United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge.
Joshua Hoskins, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. His First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc.
20). In it, Plaintiff describes a campaign of retaliation
against him at Menard that culminated in his assault by
Officer Spiller on June 10, 2016, and his subsequent denial
of medical care and mental health treatment. (Doc. 20, pp.
24-34). The allegations in the First Amended Complaint give
rise to claims against the defendants under the First,
Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments. Id. In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages. (Doc. 20, p. 35). He also seeks a permanent transfer
from Menard. Id.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the First Amended Complaint and any
supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to
exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this
action are subject to summary dismissal. The First Amended
Complaint otherwise survives preliminary review.
claims in this case are related to claims that are now
pending before this Court in two cases he filed on March 28,
2016, i.e., Hoskins v. Dilday, No.
16-cv-00334-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill. filed Mar. 28, 2016)
(“lead case”) and Hoskins v. Dilday, No.
16-cv-00335-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill. filed Mar. 28, 2016)
(“consolidated case”). In fact, his two prior
cases are so closely related to one another that this Court
consolidated them on April 11, 2016. (Doc. 7, lead case; Doc.
8, consolidated case). Plaintiff subsequently filed several
motions seeking leave to amend his complaints. (Docs. 8, 11,
15, lead case). This Court ultimately allowed him to proceed
with the claims set forth in his second amended complaint.
(Doc. 23, lead case). However, in the screening order entered
on July 28, 2016, this Court warned Plaintiff that adding any
more “claims or parties . . . may lead to severance,
dismissal, or additional fees.” (Doc. 22, n. 1, lead
months, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on
October 24, 2016. (Doc. 1). He named twelve of the twenty
defendants from his consolidated cases as defendants in this
action, as well as five others, for violations of his
constitutional rights at Menard in 2016. Id. The
claims in both cases arise from assaults on Plaintiff in
2016. On November 8, 2016, the Central District transferred
the case to this District. (Doc. 9). At the time the case was
transferred, a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was
pending. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Second
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, which this Court
granted on January 11, 2017. (Docs. 17, 19). The First
Amended Complaint is now subject to screening.
alleges that he was assaulted by a member of Menard's
staff on June 10, 2016. (Doc. 20, pp. 24-34). The assault was
orchestrated by officials at Menard who were either upset
with Plaintiff for his involvement in a staff assault in 2013
or were retaliating against him for filing grievances in
2016. Id. He names seventeen prison officials in
connection with the planned attack and the denial of medical
care and mental health treatment in its wake. Id.
learned of the planned attack on March 25, 2016, when
Sergeant William Spiller approached Plaintiff in his cell in
Menard's North 2 Cell House and indicated that his
brother, Officer Spiller, worked in the same cell house.
(Doc. 20, p. 24). Sergeant Spiller warned Plaintiff that
several prison officials, including Sergeant Spiller, Wooley,
Allen, Bump, Gutreuter, Eovaladi, Ward, Hudson, and
“others, ” were planning to have Officer Spiller
attack him “unexpectedly.” Id.
19, 2016, Allen then stopped Plaintiff as he was walking past
the South Cell House and warned him that he “had a lot
of more beatings coming from their staffs in the
future.” (Doc. 20, p. 24). Allen told Plaintiff of his
plans to have Officer Spiller attack Plaintiff. Ward added
that “they” were going to make sure the officer
was not disciplined for the attack on Plaintiff. Id.
Further, Ward said that Sergeant Spiller, Officer Spiller,
Eovaladi, and “other staffs” had already put the
medical technicians (A. Lang, Engelage, and Stephanie,
among others) on notice of these plans and instructed them to
deny Plaintiff medical treatment for his injuries after the
attack. Id. They were also told not to document any
injuries. Id. Wooley explained that the attack was
planned because Plaintiff pushed an unidentified “IDOC
officer” on February 19, 2013. Id. Ward
indicated that Menard officials learned of the incident when
reviewing his disciplinary history record. Id.
22, 2016, Hudson stopped Plaintiff in the North 2 Cell House
and threatened to “assault [him] again” by having
other staff members carry out the attack for him. (Doc. 20,
p. 24). He said, “[Y]ou gonna be seeing . . . [O]fficer
Spiller real soon.” Id. Hudson indicated that
he, Eovaladi, and “others” were planning to have
Officer Spiller attack Plaintiff while he was working on that
gallery. Id. Hudson admitted planning the attack in
retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting him to internal
affairs earlier that year. Id.
3, 2016, Sergeant Spiller returned to Plaintiff's cell in
Menard's North 2 Cell House. (Doc. 20, p. 25). He said
that he was aware of the statements made by Allen, Wooley,
Ward, and Hudson. Id. Sergeant Spiller said that he
intended to have “someone special to him” assault
Plaintiff. Id. Sergeant Spiller made this statement
in response to Plaintiff's comment that he had
“matters” pending against him in federal court.
10, 2016, Officer Spiller was assigned to work the 8 Gallery
in Menard's North 2 Cell House where Plaintiff was
housed. (Doc. 20, p. 25). The officer approached Plaintiff in
his cell, placed him in cuffs, and twisted both of his
wrists. Id. He then removed Plaintiff from the cell
and escorted him to the visiting room cage area. Id.
On the way, Officer Spiller continued twisting
Plaintiff's cuffs, which tore his skin and caused his
wrists to bleed. Id. At the same time, Officer
Spiller asked, “[H]ow do[es] that feel, bitch?”
Id. Once in the holding area, Officer Spiller pushed
Plaintiff onto the floor very hard, causing him to hit his
forehead on a brick wall and to suffer serious abrasions and
swelling. Id. The officer then punched Plaintiff in
the chest and stomach twice. Id.
same time, Officer Spiller demanded to know if Plaintiff had
a “complaint against [his] love[d] one.” (Doc.
20, p. 25). The officer told Plaintiff that he intended to
give him a reason for filing his complaint. (Doc. 20, p. 26).
Officer Spiller added that he was not worried about being
disciplined because Sergeant Spiller worked in internal
affairs and planned the attack with his “buddies,
” Wooley, Gee, Ward, and “others.”
Id. According to Officer Spiller, Wooley, Ward, Gee,
Eovaladi, Hudson, Gutreuter, Allen, Hudson, Carter, and
“others” had him personally assigned to the
gallery to beat up Plaintiff. Id. Officer Spiller
also told Plaintiff that prison officials would not respond
to his grievances. Id.
the same day, Nurse Gregson spoke with Plaintiff while making
rounds to pass out psychotropic medications. (Doc. 20, p.
26). Plaintiff complained of injuries to his forehead and
chest, including swelling and bruising, that resulted from
Officer Spiller's attack on Plaintiff earlier that day.
Id. Plaintiff requested ice packs and pain
relievers. Id. The nurse refused to treat Plaintiff,
after explaining that Medical Technicians Lang, Engelage,
Freidrich, “others, ” and Eovaladi instructed the
nurse not to provide Plaintiff “with shit.”
Id. The nurse explained that this was in return for
grievances Plaintiff filed in the past to complain about a
mental health professional, D. Franklin,  and because of
the pushing incident in his disciplinary record. (Doc. 20,
pp. 26-27). The nurse told Plaintiff that he was
“screwed.” (Doc. 20, p. 27).
11, 2016, Engelage made medication rounds to Plaintiff's
cell. Id. When he showed her his injuries, she said
that “she didn't give a fuck.” Id.
She denied him all medical treatment, including his
psychotropic medications. Id. She went on to explain
that she already knew about his injuries because she
discussed them with Officer Spiller, Eovaladi, Allen, Ward,
Wooley, Gutreuter, Hudson and “other staffs.”
Id. They asked her not to document the injuries or
provide Plaintiff with any medical care. Id. For
that reason, Plaintiff should expect nothing. Id.
14, 2016, Hartman refused to let Plaintiff speak with a
psychiatrist. (Doc. 20, p. 27). He acknowledged
Plaintiff's assault by Officer Spiller and his injuries,
including the knot on his head. Id. He admitted
hearing Officer Spiller, Gutreuter, Eovaladi, Allen, Spiller,
Wooley, Carter, and others discuss it. (Doc. 20, pp. 27-28).
In fact, he was riding with Officer Spiller on the day of the
assault and knew it was going to occur. (Doc. 20, p. 28).
Hartman also said that Officer Spiller, Eovaladi, Wooley,
Bump, and “others” told him that Plaintiff was
not allowed to speak with any medical or mental health
provider. (Doc. 20, p. 27). Hartman was also prohibited from
documenting the injuries. Id.
18, 2016, Ward observed Plaintiff standing in his cell and
commented on the fact that Plaintiff must have thought he was
joking when he warned Plaintiff about the planned attack on
him. (Doc. 20, p. 29). Ward indicated that Officer Spiller
was supposed to “fuck [him] up bad, ” but he
failed to do so. Id. Ward, Wooley, Eovaladi, and
Allen wanted him to inflict more harm. Id. He then
warned Plaintiff that the officers were monitoring his
outgoing mail to make sure he could not file a grievance to
complain about the incident. Id.
23, 2016, Plaintiff finally had an opportunity to speak with
a mental health professional, Ms. Creason. (Doc. 20, p. 28).
As soon as Officer Spiller, Hartman, and Gee observed the
interaction, they put an end to it. Id. They
instructing Creason not to speak with Plaintiff or let him
speak with any other mental health or medical professional.
Id. They said that the order came from Sergeant
Spiller and Bump. Id.
Spiller later spoke with Plaintiff at his cell. (Doc. 20, p.
29). He admitted knowing about every detail of the assault.
Id. He explained that the officers knew of
Plaintiff's complaints about prison staff that dated back
to an assault on him in February 2016. Id. Sergeant
Spiller indicated that they were still monitoring
Plaintiff's outgoing mail and would intercept and
“burn” any grievances or appeals related to
prison guard attacks on him. Id.
7, 2016, Plaintiff encountered Brookman in the visiting room.
(Doc. 20, p. 31). Brookman told Plaintiff that he had
reviewed more than a thousand kites that Plaintiff sent to
Carter to complain about Officer Spiller's assault on him
in June. Id. Brookman indicated that Carter was also
aware of what occurred. Id. In fact, both Brookman
and Carter knew about the planned assault before it happened
and could have stopped it. Id. However, they
declined to do so because Plaintiff deserved to be attacked.
10, 2016, Aimee Lang passed by Plaintiff's cell. (Doc.
20, p. 30). When she saw Plaintiff, Lang stopped and
acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's numerous requests for
medical treatment since the date of his assault. Id.
She said that he should have gathered from her silence that
no medical treatment would be provided ...