United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES R. KAMMEYER, JR., PHILLIP CARRIER, and ALL INMATES HOUSED AT USP MARION, Plaintiffs,
WILLIAM TRUE, D. STICKELS, DANIEL HUGGINS, BASLER, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge
James Kammeyer and Phillip Carrier, inmates with the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) who are currently
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary located in
Marion, Illinois (“USP Marion”), bring this civil
rights action alleging violations of their constitutional
rights by persons acting under the color of federal authority
that occurred in connection with prison restrictions imposed
after several incidents involving drug overdoses. See
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
(Doc. 15). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary
damages. Before the Court is the First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 15), Plaintiff Kammeyer's Motion to Correct the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), and Motion to take Judicial
Notice and to Appoint Counsel (Docs. 18 and 19).
original Complaint in this case (Doc. 1) was filed by pro
se plaintiff James Kammeyer. Following an initial
screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state
a claim for relief and granted Plaintiff Kammeyer leave to
file an amended complaint. (Doc. 14). On July 23, 2019,
Plaintiff Kammeyer along with an additional Plaintiff,
Phillip Carrier, filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc.
15). Both Plaintiffs signed the First Amended Complaint, but
only Plaintiff Kammeyer paid the filing fee. The Court issued
an order advising Plaintiffs of the consequences of bringing
claims jointly in a single lawsuit, including their filing
fee obligations, and giving Plaintiff Carrier an opportunity
to withdraw from the case or sever his claims into an
individual action by August 28, 2019. (Doc. 16, p. 5).
Plaintiff Kammeyer then filed two identical motions titled
Motion to Take Judicial Notice and to Appoint Counsel. (Doc.
18 and 19).
First Amended Complaint
First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
preliminary review 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). At this juncture, the
factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to
be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs make the following
allegations: Due to several drug overdoses occurring at USP
Marion from March 30, 2019, until April 8, 2019, the entire
facility was placed on lockdown status. (Doc. 15, p. 11).
Additionally, the following sanctions were implemented on the
entire inmate population: (1) inmates would be limited to one
five-minute phone call and five outgoing emails per day; and
(2) the monthly commissary spending limit would be reduced
from $360 to $100. (Id.). Inmates were also directed
to pack three trash bags with their personal belongings: (1)
one for personal property; (2) one for institution-issued
clothing; and (3) one for excess personal property, which
could be mailed home at the inmate's own expense.
(Id. at p. 12). After all inmates packed their bags,
USP Marion staff conducted a shakedown of the entire
facility. (Id.). During the shakedown, staff threw
away excess personal property into trash bins and did not
provide information regarding the ability to mail excess
property home or provide confiscation forms for any property
seized in violation of BOP policy. (Id. at pp.
12-13). Staff also destroyed all microwave ovens in inmate
housing units that had been purchased with inmate funds.
(Id. at p. 13).
the lockdown ended on April 9, 2019, more inmates overdosed
and Warden True lowered the monthly commissary spending limit
to $75. (Id.).
the week of April 8, 2019, Plaintiff Kammeyer witnessed
Warden True in the lunchroom become hostile toward inmates
trying to speak with him. (Id.). He also heard
Warden True tell inmates that “he wanted the drug
problem solved ‘however [inmates] have to do it,
'… and that if the inmates wanted the mass
sanctions lifted, inmates should ‘enforce the
rules' against other inmates who were suspected drug
users or distributors.” (Id. at p. 14).
True, Captain Stickles, and S.I.S. Officer Huggins met
collectively and individually with the heads of various
inmate groups and “instructed them to ‘police
[their] own.' If inmates continued overdosing, they said,
just drag them into a cell ‘so we don't see
it.'” (Id.). Warden True stated that there
would not be consequences for anyone who acted, even
violently, against drug users. (Id.).
True, Stickles, and Huggins directed inmates to attack one
another and encouraged violence, Plaintiff Carrier was
assaulted by his cellmate and lost the use of his left eye.
(Id. at p. 16). Prior to the attack, he had asked
counselor Basler for a new cell assignment, but was ignored.
(Id. at pp. 9, 16, 17). He continued to be ignored
by Huggins following the attack, when Plaintiff Carrier tried
to talk to Huggins and other staff to try and figure out why
the attack took place. (Id. at p. 16). Another
inmate attacked Plaintiff Carrier again on June 18, 2019,
soon after he expressed a desire to become a plaintiff in
this lawsuit. (Id. at pp. 9, 16). Plaintiff Carrier
was then placed in the Special Housing Unit. (Id. at
threatened to implement further restrictions and lock down
the facility if inmates did not take part in stopping the
drug abuse problem. (Id. at p. 18). Inmates,
including Plaintiff Kammeyer, attempted to organize a food
strike in protest of the restrictions. (Id.).
Plaintiff Kammeyer was threatened with retaliation, if he
participated, by True, Stickles, Huggins, and Balser and was
also threatened with violence by other inmates.
(Id.). Ultimately, Plaintiff did not participate.
initial matter, the Court dismisses Plaintiff Carrier as a
party to this case. Plaintiff Carrier signed the First
Amended Complaint, but did not pay the filing fee or file a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Motion”). Following the filing of
the First Amended Complaint, the Court issued an order
directing Plaintiff Carrier to notify the Court by August 28,
2019, if he wished to continue as a plaintiff in this action
or pursue his claims individually in a separate lawsuit.
(Doc. 16, p. 5). He was warned that that failure to respond
to the Court Order by this deadline would result in the
obligation to ...