United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge.
Deon Hampton, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly
occurred at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Plaintiff
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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 Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
initial matter, Plaintiff's Complaint has many pages that
are completely illegible due to poor photocopying and the
sloppiness of Plaintiff's handwriting and grammar. To the
extent that Plaintiff attempted to bring claims not described
in this Order, those claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice for the reasons of sound judicial
administration because they were illegible. Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint in an attempt to clarify any claims
he intended to bring; any amended complaint should also
include claims already pending in this case and follow all
applicable local rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
is a transsexual woman, yet resides in a male prison. (Doc.
1, p. 10). On March 4, 2017 at 7:30 pm, Meyers, Scro,
Spiller, Henlly, Pestka, Lawless, Adams, Porter, Dudek, and
Jones, came to Plaintiff's cell and told
to put on a bra and thong and perform sexual dance moves.
(Doc. 1, p. 10, 20). Plaintiff was forced to reveal his
breasts and buttocks. (Doc. 1, p. 20). The defendants taunted
him and called him names like “sissy, ”
“faggot, ” “cocksucker, ” etc. (Doc.
1, p. 10, 20). Meyers, Scro, Adams, Spiller, and Henlly took
Plaintiff to an office and directed Plaintiff to sing happy
birthday and have phone sex with a person on the other end of
a call. (Doc. 1, p. 10, 20). Plaintiff was told not to tell
anyone about the incident. (Doc. 1, p. 10). But later,
Plaintiff reported the incident. (Doc. 1, p. 11).
also alleges that staff, including Homoya, Porter, Mercks,
Kennedy, Henlly, Adams, Lawless, Pestka, Spiller, Scro,
Meyers, Jones, and Dudek, have been forcing him to expose
himself and have paid him for sexual favors. (Doc. 1, p. 21).
James, Meyer, Homoya and Scro would continually come to
Plaintiff's cell and degrade him in front of other
inmates by calling him names like “dick sucker.”
(Doc. 1, p. 11) (Doc. 1-1, p. 7).
24, 2017, staff assaulted Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 11). The
incident started when Homoya came to Plaintiff's cell and
began making comments of a sexual nature. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Plaintiff felt degraded and feared for his life. Id.
He told Homoya he was going to invoke the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, (“PREA.”) (Doc. 1, p. 12) (Doc.
1-1, p. 9). Homoya responded that he would put Plaintiff in
segregation on a bogus ticket. Homoya returned with Scro,
Adams, Meyer, Pestka, Henlly, Kays, Kennedy, Mercks, Porter,
James, Bennett, Lively, Jones, and Williams. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
They told Plaintiff to cuff up and then once he did so, they
attacked him. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13). Plaintiff was kicked, spit
on, and dragged from his cell. (Doc. 1, p. 13). He begged the
guards not to kill him. Id. He was taken to a cloth
room where Adams, Lively, Porter, and Bennett beat him some
more. Id. Porter and Henlly then took out a knife
and proceeded to cut all of Plaintiff's clothes off,
including his bra, and then began to cut off his hair. (Doc.
1, pp. 14, 23). Plaintiff was finally left alone; the guards
yanked his wrists when they un-cuffed him through the chuck
hole. Id. Plaintiff was left completely naked
without a bedsheet, a blanket, or a jumpsuit. Id. As
a result of the attack, Plaintiff suffered from a broken
tooth and a bruised chest. (Doc. 1, p. 17).
reported the attack to the med line nurse the next morning.
Id. He was then taken to Internal Affairs to be
interviewed by Defendant Frank Bowles. Id. Bowles
became angry at Plaintiff's accusations and began to hit
him on his head. (Doc. 1, p. 15). He then told Plaintiff he
would write him a bogus ticket and instruct the others to
give Plaintiff the max. Id. Plaintiff has named
Charles Heck and Meyer as defendants in this lawsuit because
they found Plaintiff guilty of the bogus ticket. (Doc. 1, p.
18). Plaintiff was sent to segregation, lost good time, and
was assigned to C-grade status. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff
alleges that Heck and Meyer violated his due process rights,
retaliated against him, and assigned excessive punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment when they found him guilty
of a bogus ticket. (Doc. 1, pp. 18-19).
in segregation, Plaintiff was denied meals and showers. (Doc.
1, p. 25). He specifically alleges that Dudek and Waller
condoned this conduct. (Doc. 1, p. 29).
alleges that on July 4, 2017, Warden Love walked through the
segregation unit. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 5, 16). Plaintiff attempted
to speak with Love, but Love refused to come over and speak
with Plaintiff, calling him a “faggot” and
stating that he doesn't condone a gay lifestyle and that
Pinckneyville is a men's prison. Id.
also wrote grievances about the events at issue in this
lawsuit. (Doc. 1, p. 15). He wrote grievances to Warden Keren
(Jaimek), but she failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff
also wrote to the director of the IDOC and sent him
grievances regarding the mistreatment, but he failed to
respond. (Doc. 1, p. 18). He alleges Wardens Love and Thomas
are liable for failing to respond to grievances. (Doc. 1, p.
named Wexford Mental Health as a Defendant because they
allowed all of the above conduct to happen and did not report
it or intervene to stop it. (Doc. 1, p. 27). He further
alleges that all of the named defendants conspired to cover
up his sexual abuse and sexual assault. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 6 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claims survive
Count 1 - Homoya, Porter, Mercks, Kennedy,
Henlly, Adams, Lawless, Pestka, Spiller, Scro, Meyer, Jones,
Dudek, James, Love, Keren, and Baldwin subjected Plaintiff to
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment when
they engaged in a campaign of harassment against him,
including calling him derogatory names, forcing him to engage
in sexual dances for their amusement, forcing him to expose
himself, forcing him to engage in phone sex, and otherwise
paying him to engage in sexual behavior, specifically on
March 4, 2017, and at other times;
Count 2 - Homoya, Scro, Adams, Meyer,
Pestka, Henlly, Kays, Kennedy, Mercks, Porter, James,
Bennett, Lively, Jones, Williams, Keren, and Baldwin used or
condoned the use of excessive force on Plaintiff in violation
of the Eighth Amendment and committed a state law battery