United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Staci
M. Yandle, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Santoin Russell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights while at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to
protect him from an assault on the yard in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
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: On
September 6, 2017, a physical altercation occurred on the
West Yard at Menard between two gangs, the Vice Lords and the
Gangster Disciples. (Doc. 1, p. 5). An argument between two
gang members started in the commissary and escalated to a
physical fight between thirty gang members when the members
reached the yard. (Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff was
escorted from his housing unit to the yard where the
altercation took place. Plaintiff noticed that none of the
inmates entering the yard were being patted down or searched
for contraband. (Id.). Once on the yard, Plaintiff
was threatened by two inmates. Plaintiff approached the fence
and spoke with John and Jane Doe correctional officers about
the threats. Plaintiff informed the officers that he was
afraid for his life and wanted to leave the yard.
(Id. at p. 7). The officers refused to remove
Plaintiff from the yard and stated that he would be fine and
to “go play with the gang members.”
(Id.). Plaintiff was later attacked by three men,
including the two who had threatened him when he first
entered the yard. Plaintiff received a stab wound above his
left eye, three cuts to his left forearm, and cuts on his
upper and lower back. The inmates had metal homemade weapons
that they used in the attack. Plaintiff believes the inmates
were able to bring metal weapons on the yard because the
metal detectors were previously removed from Menard and
officers did not conduct pat-downs. (Id. at p. 8).
Based
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single Count in this pro
se action:
Count 1:Defendants failed to protect
Plaintiff from an assault in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
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
without prejudice as inadequately pled under the
Twombly pleading standard.[1]
Discussion
Plaintiff
states a viable claim against John and Jane Doe Correctional
Officers for failure to protect him from the inmate assault
as he alleges he told the officers about the threat made by
the other inmates and asked to leave the yard, but they
refused and instead encouraged him to “play” with
the other gang members. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834, 837 (1994); Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d
749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff
also states a claim against Lashbrook as he alleges that as
warden, she was deliberately indifferent to the safety of
inmates when she removed the metal detectors and disregarded
pat down searches. See Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d
555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (supervisor may be liable for
actions of subordinates if he knew about the conduct and
facilitates, approves, condones, or turns a blind eye to it);
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. However, all official
capacity claims against Lashbrook are DISMISSED
without prejudice.[2] See Will v. Mich. Dep't
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (state officials
named in their official capacities may not be sued for
monetary damages).
John
Doe Defendants
Frank
Lawrence, as the current warden of Menard, will be added to
the docket (in his official capacity only) for the purpose of
responding to discovery (informal or formal) aimed at
identifying the unknown defendants. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir.
2009). Once the names of the unknown defendants are
discovered, Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute the
newly identified defendants in place of the generic
designations in the case caption and throughout the
Complaint.
Motion
...