United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE Honorable United States District
Daniel Amaya, an inmate housed at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center, brings this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was formerly
housed at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”)
and his claims relate to his time at Menard. He claims that
on or about April 1, 2016, his constitutional rights were
violated during a strip search and cell shake down conducted
by members of the Orange Crush tactical team (the
“shake down”). In connection with these claims,
Plaintiff has named Kimberly Butler (Menard's former
warden), John Doe 1 (Chief of Operations for IDOC) and John
Doe 2 (unknown Orange Crush officer).
First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for a
preliminary review 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.
First Amended Complaint
to the First Amended Complaint, on April 1, 2016, members of
the Orange Crush tactical team conducted a shakedown at
Menard (in particular, Plaintiff references cell 20, gallery
10 in the east cell house). (Doc. 12, p. 3). According to
Plaintiff, John Doe 2 sexually assaulted him during the
shakedown. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
John Doe 2 subjected him to a strip search. (Doc. 12, p. 4).
During the strip search, John Doe 2 ordered Plaintiff to bend
over and proceeded to blow air from his mouth into
Plaintiff's exposed rectum. Id. Plaintiff
objected and John Doe 2 told him to “shut the fuck
Doe 2 then ordered Plaintiff to put on his
“blues” (blue pants and blue shirt). Id.
However, Plaintiff was not permitted to wear any
“whites” (underwear). Id. Plaintiff was
handcuffed behind his back. Id. The handcuffs were
so tight they dug into Plaintiff's skin and left bloody
marks on his wrists. Id. Plaintiff asked John Doe 2
to loosen the handcuffs and was told to “shut the fuck
was ordered out of his cell and lined up with other inmates.
Id. At some point, John Doe 2 stopped to tuck
Plaintiff's shirt into his pants. (Doc. 12, pp. 4-5). As
he was tucking Plaintiff's shirt in, John Doe 2 grabbed
Plaintiff's penis and buttocks saying things like
“eyes down head down, ” “easy access,
” and “fuzzy wuzzy.” (Doc. 12, p. 5).
Orange Crush tactical unit paraded the inmates from their
cells to the prison chapel. Id. The inmates were
ordered to stand in such a way that their genitals were in
direct contact with the buttocks of the inmate ahead of them.
Id. During this time, Orange Crush officers yelled
at the inmates to keep their heads and eyes down.
Id. Plaintiff was also ordered to maintain a
“stress position” for an unknown period of time.
Plaintiff returned to his cell, all of his personal items
were in disarray. (Doc. 12, pp. 5-6). He was provided with a
shakedown slip. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, the shakedown slip
did not include an accurate account of things that were taken
and was not associated with any particular officer.
Id. Plaintiff believes the shakedown slips were
purposely vague to conceal the Orange Crush officers'
alleges that John Doe 2 executed the shakedown on April 1,
2016 pursuant to a policy or practice implemented and
overseen by Butler and John Doe 1. (Doc. 12, pp. 8-9). He
asserts that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate
his constitutional rights and to cover up the violation.
(Doc. 12, pp. 7-10). Plaintiff also alleges that Butler and
John Doe 1 were aware of prior similar instances of abuse
conducted by Orange Crush officers and nonetheless, failed to
intervene to keep the officers from abusing inmates. (Doc.
12, pp. 11-12).
Plaintiff asserts that the shakedown constitutes the
intentional infliction of emotional ...