United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
currently at the Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), proceeds pro se in a §
1983 action alleging the unconstitutional use of force at the
Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case
is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements
and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
February 21, 2018, Plaintiff was housed on the Administrative
Detention Unit of the Pontiac North Cell House. Plaintiff
alleges that two other inmates had not been provided medical
care, triggering a “dangerous disturbance” in
which a fire was started, a staff member was injured, and
property was damaged. In response, a tactical team was
deployed to Plaintiff cell. Plaintiff had alleged in his
original complaint that Defendant Allen, the head of the
tactical team had used an unreasonable amount of pepper spray
on him. He does not reallege that here, requesting that the
Court incorporate his prior claims against Defendant Allen
into the amended complaint. This the Court will not do. In
its merit review order the Court clearly instructed Plaintiff
that if he filed an amended complaint, it was “to
include all of Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants
without reference to a prior pleading.” [ECF 7 p. 6].
alleges that tactical team member Doe #1 entered Plaintiff
cell, cuffed him, took him outside and handcuffed to a fence.
Plaintiff claims that he was confined there in the freezing
cold for three hours wearing only a thin T-shirt and pants.
Doe Defendant #1, then returned Plaintiff to the building,
placing him in a holding cell. Plaintiff was ordered to
remove his clothing and was strip searched. He claims that
the search caused the pepper spray to migrate to his
genitals, anus and other areas, causing him to feel as though
his body were on fire.
was taken to the nurse's station and asked whether he was
injured. Plaintiff denied injury but claimed that he was
unable to see due to pepper spray in his eyes. The nurse
rinsed Plaintiff's eyes, providing only minimal relief.
Plaintiff complained to Doe #1, asking for the opportunity to
wash off the pepper spray. Plaintiff claims that the officer
ignored the request.
thereafter escorted Plaintiff to the Chow Hall. While there,
Plaintiff asked Doe #2 to allow him to use the restroom. When
the request was refused, Plaintiff urinated on himself. He
claims that other inmates also began urinating on the floor
as they had been in the Chow Hall “so long, ”
without using the bathroom. Plaintiff does not reveal,
however, how long the inmates had been held in the Chow Hall.
The Court questions this claim, as it had indicated in the
prior merit review order that the inmates' urinating on
the floor appeared to be more in the form of a protest. This
claim will be allowed to proceed, however, pending a more
fully developed record.
was thereafter taken from the Chow Hall and placed in a
segregation cell. Plaintiff is unsure as to the identity of
the individual who placed him there, stating that it might
have been Doe #1. Plaintiff claims that the segregation cell
had water on the floor due to a leaking toilet. He claims,
without further explanation, that he was unable to wash off
the pepper spray. Plaintiff makes the additional claim that
his cell was cold as due to an open window. When he asked an
unidentified individual to close the window, the request was
ignored. At 1:30 p.m., three Tact Team Officers approached
Plaintiff's cell, told him to change into a segregation
jumpsuit and took him to a waiting van where he was
transported to Menard. Plaintiff claims that he was not able
to wash off the pepper spray until after his arrival at
sufficiently alleges a deliberate indifference claim against
Doe #1 who cuffed him outside, in the cold for three hours.
He also states a deliberate indifference claim against Doe #2
who allegedly refused to allow him to use the restroom. He
fails, however, to state a confinement claim regarding the
segregation cell as it appears that he was only in the cell
for a few hours. See Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640,
644 (7th Cir. 1997) (court to examine not just the severity,
but the duration of the complained-of conditions).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed solely on the deliberate indifference
claims against Doe Defendants #1 and #2 who are to be
identified in the caption in place of “John
Does.” Defendant Allen is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's
failure to plead against him. Plaintiff is placed on notice
that it will be his responsibility to identify the two Doe
Defendants as Doe Defendants cannot be served. If Plaintiff
is unable to do so, he is to inform the Court within 14 days
and is to provide a physical description of Does #1 and #2.
In such a case, the Court will consider reinstating Warden
Melvin for the sole purpose of aiding in the identification.
See Wetzel v. Sheahan, 2000 WL 222557 * 4 (7th Cir.
Feb. 22, 2000). Any claims not ...