United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
SCHANZLE-HASKINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jane Doe's
Motion to Compel Defendants Burke and Sexton to Produce
Information and Material Responsive to Plaintiff's First
Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (d/e 59)
(Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
Doe alleges that she was incarcerated in the Logan
Correctional Center (Logan) in Logan County, Illinois from
March 2015 to August 2017. She additionally alleges that
Defendant Richard MacLeod was a counselor at Logan. She
further alleges that in 2016 and 2017 MacLeod repeatedly
sexually assaulted her while she was housed at Logan. She
claims that when she reported the sexual assaults, she was
transferred to Decatur Correctional Center in retaliation for
making the report. See Complaint (d/e 1),
¶¶ 8, 15-35. The Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) operated Logan.
further alleges that Defendant Margaret Burke was Warden of
Logan at the time and Defendant Todd Sexton was a member of
Logan's Internal Affairs Department. The Complaint
alleges the following regarding Burke and Sexton:
36. On information and belief, Ms. Doe's transfer was
carried out by defendant Sexton, defendant Warden Burke, and
other as-yet-unidentified defendants, in retaliation for
plaintiff's complaint about Macleod, and with the
knowledge that it would be harmful to plaintiff.
37. On information and belief, defendant Macleod abused other
women at Logan in the same way that he abused plaintiff.
Other IDOC personnel at Logan, including but not limited to
Sexton, knew as early as February 2017 that Macleod was in
fact engaging in this pattern of abuse.
42. Likewise, in the manner described more fully above,
defendants Sexton, Burke and other as-yet-unidentified
defendants violated Ms. Doe's right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment because they knew that plaintiff's
rights were being violated, had the realistic opportunity to
intervene to prevent or stop the misconduct from occurring,
and failed to do so. In the alternative, these defendants
were on notice of a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff and
they consciously disregarded that risk.
43. The misconduct described in this count was objectively
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally, with malice
and knowing disregard for plaintiff's clearly established
constitutional rights, and not for any legitimate penological
¶¶36-37, 42-43. Does alleges claims against Burke
and Sexton for violation of her Eighth Amendment rights to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment, and for retaliating
against her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
Complaint, Counts I and II.
February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Doe served Burke and Sexton with
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production. Burke and Sexton have responded. Plaintiff
believed the responses to Interrogatories and Requests for
Production were inadequate. The parties attempted but could
not work out their differences by themselves. Plaintiff asks
this Court to compel Defendants Burke and Sexton to provide
responses to Interrogatories 6 and 7, and to produce
documents responsive to Request for Production 28.