United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JOHN D. HAYWOOD, #B44617, Plaintiff,
C/O MAUE, CHANDLER ESTATO, and KIMBERLY BUTLER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Haywood v. Finnerman, Case No. 18-cv-21-JPG (S.D.
Ill. Jan. 5, 2018), Plaintiff John Haywood, an inmate at
Lawrence Correctional Center, filed an action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605 (7th Cir. 2007), three claims against Defendants Maue,
Estato, and Butler were severed from the initial action to
form the basis for this action, Case No. 18-cv-524-SMY.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
those claims 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.
fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that Count 7 in this action
shall survive past the threshold stage.
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: in May 2014, Plaintiff
had been moved to a cell with another inmate (Doyle) who,
like Plaintiff, had a bottom bunk permit. Rather than report
the problem, Doyle tried to force Plaintiff out of the cell
by starting an argument and accusing Plaintiff of acting
aggressively. (Doc. 2, p. 11). Plaintiff was not aggressive,
however. He packed his property so that he could request
another cell, which he explained to C/O Mrs. K (not a
that day, Defendant Maue and several other officers came to
the cell with Doyle (who had been at work), and Maue sent
Doyle into the cell to fight Plaintiff. Plaintiff swung
first, Doyle ran out of the cell, and the force of
Plaintiff's swing caused him to fall. Maue caught
Plaintiff in a headlock, and then a chokehold that Plaintiff
felt was an attempt to break his neck. (Doc. 2, p. 11). A
Lieutenant arrived and ordered Maue to let Plaintiff go
before he killed him. (Doc. 2, p. 12). Maue released
Plaintiff but then shoved his face into the floor and put his
knee on the back of Plaintiff's neck. The Lieutenant
ordered Maue to stop, and took Plaintiff to Health Care in a
believes he suffered a broken elbow, and he could not speak
for 4 days because of his neck injury. X-rays were not taken
until 3 weeks later, and Plaintiff got no medical treatment.
Plaintiff was told nothing was wrong with his elbow or neck,
but he insists he can still move a piece of his elbow, and
claims the X-ray report he received showed a fracture. (Doc.
2, p. 13).
was charged with a disciplinary infraction for the
“fight” with Doyle. (Doc. 2, p. 12). On the day
his ticket was to be heard, Defendant C/O Chandler
(Estato) told Plaintiff to get ready as he would be
back to get him. Plaintiff requested a wheelchair. (Doc. 2,
p. 12). Chandler never returned, and when Plaintiff
questioned him later that day, Chandler responded that
Plaintiff had “refused” to attend the hearing
when he asked for a wheelchair. (Doc. 2, p. 13).
was found guilty of a staff assault for the incident with
Maue. He was moved from the Health Care Unit (where he had
spent the previous 3 weeks) to segregation, thinking he had
been given a 30-day segregation punishment. However, he spoke
to Defendant Warden Butler when she visited the wing, and she
informed him that his punishment was for 90 days in
segregation. Plaintiff disputes that the incident amounted ...