United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
RASHAD K. RICHMOND, Plaintiff,
C/O KESSLER, C/O CRAWFORD, C/O HINTERSCHER, LIEUTENANT DELLINGER, DR. PITTMAN, ZOLLARS, C/O STANLEY, C/O DASH, and LIEUTENANT LIVINGTON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rashad K. Richmond, who at the time he filed his Complaint
was an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) incarcerated at Hill Correctional
Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for deprivations of his constitutional rights while he was
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Hinterscher sexually abused him
and excessive force was used against him. He asserts claims
against the defendants under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages.
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).
Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: On July
11, 2019, Officer Hinterscher escorted Plaintiff from his
cell to his daily mental health group (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Hinterscher stopped Plaintiff and reached for his groin.
Plaintiff alleges that this amounted to sexual abuse and
asked Hinterscher what he was doing. Hinterscher informed him
that he was performing a search procedure and then grabbed
Plaintiff's penis again, after Plaintiff told him he was
not conducting the search the right way and was touching his
penis (Id.). Plaintiff requested to be placed in the
shower and make a Prison Rape Elimination Act
Crawford, C/O Kessler, and Lt. Dellinger approached, and
Plaintiff informed them that he was just sexually abused and
he wanted to make a PREA call. Dellinger refused and told
Plaintiff he was going back to his cell (Id. at p.
9). All four officers used excessive force on Plaintiff by
bending his arms, twisting his wrists, and pulling on his
arms and fingers when Plaintiff grabbed ahold of the railing
to prevent the officers from taking him to his cell. In his
cell, they continued to use excessive force. C/O Kessler
shoved Plaintiff by the back of the neck, C/O Crawford
grabbed Plaintiff by the hair and put him in a chokehold, and
Hinterscher wrapped chains around his neck preventing him
from breathing (Id. at p. 10). After Plaintiff was
knocked to the floor, they then hit him in the head and back
numerous times. Plaintiff passed out from an anxiety attack
and he was taken to the healthcare unit. He was released by
Dr. Pittman after Pittman deemed his vitals were stable, but
Pittman did not check Plaintiff for injuries. He was placed
on crisis watch by mental health professional Zollar after
she was informed by the correctional officers that Plaintiff
said he was going to kill himself (Id. at p. 11).
Zollar did not see Plaintiff during the altercation.
spent two weeks on crisis watch and could not eat because his
tonsils were sore from being chocked by the officers. He
asked C/O Stanley, C/O Dash, and Lt. Livingston for medical
care on a number of occasions while on crisis watch but they
refused (Id. at p. 11). Plaintiff missed 21 meals
because he could not eat.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following three counts:
Count 1: Hinterscher sexually abused Plaintiff in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Count 2: Hinterscher, Crawford, Kessler, and Lt.
Dellinger used excessive force on Plaintiff in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
Count 3: Stanley, Dash, and Lt Livington were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's injuries and his
inability to eat in violation of the Eighth
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