United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TERRANCE D GODFREY, No. B32997, Plaintiff,
BRYAN EASTON, TYLER JAIMET, PAMELA SCOTT, LACY REAMS, RICHARD HARRIS, BRUCE GUTREUTER, KIMBERLY BUTLER, and DEBBIE KNAUER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle, United States District Judge.
Terrance D. Godfrey, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights that allegedly occurred when he was housed at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that guards at Menard beat him in violation
of his civil rights.
August 16, 2016, the Court dismissed this action with
prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an Order
of the Court. (Doc. 14). Judgment was entered the same day.
(Doc. 15). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently
vacated the Court's judgment of dismissal and remanded
the case for further proceedings. (Doc. 39-1).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) 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.
Complaint contains the following allegations:
Escape and Excessive Force
April 25, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from Menard to
Chester Memorial Hospital for medical treatment due to an
apparent seizure. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Correctional officers
Easton and Jaimet were supervising Plaintiff while he was
receiving medical treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Jaimet left
Plaintiff's hospital room and asked nursing staff to
bring Plaintiff something to eat. Id. Easton
remained in Plaintiff's hospital room and Plaintiff
observed that Easton appeared agitated. Id. Easton
commented that he was tired of “babysitting”
Plaintiff, wanted to return to Menard and made derogatory
statements about Menard's warden and other prison
officials. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
hospital room had an adjoining bathroom that attached to a
second hospital room. At some point, Plaintiff asked to use
the bathroom. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). Easton loosened
Plaintiff's hand and ankle restraints, allowed Plaintiff
to enter the bathroom and closed the bathroom door. (Doc. 1,
p. 10). After the door closed, Plaintiff attempted to escape
by climbing out of a window in the adjoining hospital room.
and Easton caught Plaintiff attempting to escape and a
struggle ensued. Id. While Plaintiff was hanging
from the hospital window, Easton grabbed his right arm from
inside the adjoining hospital room. Id. Plaintiff
was then sprayed with pepper spray. Id. At some
point, Jaimet exited the hospital and with the help of a
hospital employee, pulled Plaintiff from the window and
placed him on the ground. Id.
reports to the contrary, Plaintiff was not returned to the
hospital. Id. Instead, he was placed in the back of
a police vehicle and returned to Menard. Id. While
Plaintiff was in the vehicle, Sergeant Harris and Lieutenant
Gutreuter took turns beating, punching and twisting
Plaintiff's genitals. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11). Plaintiff
sustained multiple injuries to his face, wrists, ribs and
Plaintiff's return to Menard, Lieutenant Gutreuter and
Sergeant Harris continued to assault him - dragging him
through the parking lot by his restraints and spraying him in
the face with mace. Id. Plaintiff was then
restrained in a holding cell with his hands cuffed behind his
back. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff's eyes and face were
burning and he had blood running down his face and body.
Id. Plaintiff remained in the cell, restrained and
injured, for between six and seven hours. Id. During
this time, Plaintiff did not receive any medical attention.
Plaintiff was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center.
(Doc. 1, p. 12). He received “little” medical
treatment from medical staff at Pontiac. Id. He
indicates that he received pain medication and that x-rays
revealed injuries to both of his wrists. Id.
addition to the specific allegations described above,
Plaintiff alleges that Jaimet and Easton violated IDOC rules
and/or policies and attempted ...