Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daugherty v. Doe

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 12, 2019

TERRANCE DAUGHERTY, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #4, JOHN DOE #5, and JOHN DOE #6, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Staci M. Yandle United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Terrance Daugherty, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at East Moline Correctional Center (“East Moline”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that a correctional officer at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”) sexually assaulted him. He asserts claims against the defendants under the Eighth and First Amendments. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.

         This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint (Doc. 1): Upon Plaintiff's arrival at Lawrence Correctional Center on September 13, 2017, John Doe #1 took Plaintiff to the healthcare unit bathroom and sexually assaulted him. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). He made Plaintiff disrobe and he fondled Plaintiff's genitals. (Id.). John Doe #1 told Plaintiff he was angry that Plaintiff had a sexual affair with a teacher at Big Muddy Correctional Center and that he was assaulting him in retaliation for a complaint he filed against officers at that prison. (Id. at pp. 10, 15).

         John Doe #2 walked in on John Doe #1 and Plaintiff during the assault. John Doe #2 told Plaintiff “don't you even think about it!” (Doc. 1, p. 12). John Doe #4 aided and assisted John Doe #1 in covering up the incident by threatening Plaintiff and a nurse that witnessed the assault. (Doc. 1, p. 12-13). John Doe #5 and John Doe #1's supervisor should have foreseen John Doe #1's actions but failed to do so and failed to discipline John Doe #1 prior to the September 13, 2017 event. (Id. at p. 14). John Doe #5 also threatened Plaintiff in the healthcare unit.

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following Counts:

Count 1:John Doe #1 subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment when he sexually assaulted Plaintiff on September 13, 2017.
Count 2:John Doe #1 committed a battery under Illinois state law on September 13, 2017 when he sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
Count 3:John Doe #1 retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment when he sexually assaulted Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a lawsuit against correctional officers at Big Muddy Correctional Center.
Count 4:John Doe #2, John Doe #4, and John Doe #5 were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment when they covered up the sexual assault on Plaintiff.
Count 5:John Doe #5 was deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment when he failed to foresee the assault and discipline John Doe #1 prior to the assault.

         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. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.