# Lisle v. Siddiqui

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · November 14, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151179

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** November 14, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151179

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN D. LISLE, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 19-cv-00163-NJR
)
SIERRA SENOR-MOORE, )
WARDEN LASHBROOK, )
CASSANDRA CHITY, )
SUSAN HILL, )
SERGEANT WALKER, )
LUITENET ENGELAGE, )
MATTHEW E. MAJOR, )
OFFICER BROOKS, )
ANA SCHOTT, )
CHRISTOPHER HIGGERSON, )
UNKNOWN PARTY, 1–Nurse B, )
JOHN/JANE DOES, Officers and Nurses, )
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, )
DR. LEVEY, Mental Health, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Steven Lisle, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
currently incarcerated in Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
asserts claims under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,
intentional disregard of a known suicide risk, and use of excessive force. He also alleges Illinois
state law negligent spoliation claims. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and
injunctive relief.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to
28U.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 requests
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed.
28U.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).
The Complaint
The Complaint makes the following allegations: Plaintiffis a mentally ill inmate who has
a history of suicide attempts that include self-mutilationwhile housed in the North IIsuicide watch
unit.1(Doc. 1, p. 3).He uses sharp objects found in his cell to inflict internal and external injuries.
(Doc. 1, pp. 3-4).Dr. Siddiqui, Dr. Levey, Mental Health Worker Hill, Nurse Schott, and Warden
Lashbrook know it is unsafe to place him on suicide watch in North II because he has access to
sharp objects that he can use to inflict internal and external injuries, which he has done repeatedly.
(Doc. 1, pp. 3-11). Plaintiff has been placed on suicide watch in North II despite the unsafe

conditions there.Id.
In January 2019, Plaintiffused a metal screw to cut himself and then swallowed the screw.
(Doc. 1, pp. 3-4).After the screw passed in a bowel movement, he swallowed it again. Id.Siddiqui,
Levey, Hill, Schott, and Lashbrook were aware Plaintiff had swallowed the metal screw and that
he had been placed on suicide watch in North II. Despite this knowledge, they took no action to
transfer him from North II to the health care unit where he would be under continuous observation.
(Doc. 1, pp. 3-11). On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff again used the screw to cut himself in a suicide

1 See, e.g., Lisle v. Goldman, SDIL Case No. 18-cv-01736-NJR-MAB (injuries from sharp objects found in cell);
Lisle, Jr. v. Butler, SDIL Case No. 16-cv-00422-NJR-DGW (injuriesfrom swallowing razorblades); Lisle v. Butler,
SDIL Case No. 15-cv-00965-MJR-SCW (three suicide attempts).
attempt while in North II. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Nurse B witnessed his injuries but refused to provide
medical care.(Doc. 1, pp. 4-5).
On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff caught Nurse Chitty giving him altered medication in an
attempt to poison him.(Doc. 1, pp.8, 11-12). The Effexor capsule she gave him had been opened
and contained an unknown white powdery substance. Id. He confronted her and grabbed the

medication. Id. Another nurse looked at the white powdery substance, stated it was not his
medication and could be deadly, and walked away when Plaintiff told her that he wanted the
substance tested. (Doc. 1, p.16). Nurse Chitty asked officers to assault Plaintiff to retrieve and/or
destroy the poisoned medication. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9, 11-12). Officers Walker, Engelage, Brooks,
Major, and John Does (correctional officers) assaulted Plaintiff in an attempt to retrieve and/or
destroy the evidence. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9, 11-12, 14-14). During the assault, Plaintiff was punched,
kicked, and choked.(Doc. 1, p. 7-9).
Plaintiff filed two grievances placingWarden Lashbrookon notice to save camera footage
in the North II suicide watch unit from the 3:00 –11:00 p.m. shifts onJanuary 3, 2019, and January

7, 2019.(Doc. 1, p. 12). Despite the notice, Lashbrook destroyed the camera footage.Id.
Sometime after the January 7 incidents, Plaintiff mailed samplesof his blood and the white
powdery substance to Sierra Senor-Moore, Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, and
requested the substance be tested. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-14, 25). Lisle notified the Court and all parties
in SDIL case no. 18-cv-1736-NJR that he had mailed the letter to Senor-Moore. Id. Thereafter,
Assistant Attorney General Christopher Higgerson notified Lisle that the letter had been received
and destroyed because it potentially contained hazardous materials. (Doc. 1, p. 25).
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiff alleges claims against each defendant in his or her individual and official
capacities. (Doc. 1, p. 2). With the exception of Warden Lashbrook, Plaintiff may not sue any of
the defendants in his or her official capacity. Individuals are not “persons” in their official
capacities under Section 1983. Plaintiff can only bring claims against individuals who were

personally involved in the deprivation of which he complains. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff has attempted to bring claims
against Siddiqui, Levey, Unknown Party (Nurse B), Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, John Does
(correctionalofficers),Jane Doe (nurse),Chitty, Hill, Schott, Senor-Mooreand Higgersonin their
official capacities, those claims will be dismissed.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the
followingcounts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Siddiqui
and Levey for failing to place Plaintiff in the health care unit for
continuous observation after he swallowed a metal screw he had
usedin a suicide attempt in January 2019.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Nurse B
for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for injuries he sustained
during a suicide attempt onJanuary 3,2019.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Walker,
Engelage, Brooks, Major, and John Does for denying Plaintiff
medical treatment for injuries they inflicted on January 7, 2019.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Walker,
Engelage, Brooks, Major, and John Does for assaulting Plaintiff by
punching, kicking, and choking himon January 7, 2019.
Count 5: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Chitty for
attempting to poison Plaintiff and inciting Walker, Engelage,
Brooks, Major, and John Does to assault himon January 7, 2019.
Count 6: Eighth Amendment intentional disregard of a known suicide risk
claim against Hill, Schott, Levey, and Lashbrook for allowing
Plaintiffto be placed in the North IIsuicide watchunit which posed
dangers to his health and safety in January 2019.
Count 7: Illinois state law negligent spoliation claim against Chitty, Brooks,
Walker, Engelage, Major, John Does, and Jane Doe for failing to
preserve and/or destroying the white powdery substance Chitty used
in an attempt to poison Plaintiff.
Count 8: Illinois state law negligent spoliation claim against Lashbrook for
destroyingcamera footagefrom the North IIunit on January 3, 2019
and January 7, 2019despite Plaintiff’s request that it be saved.
Count 9: Illinois state law negligent spoliation claim against Senor-Moore
and Higgersonfor destroying samplesof blood and awhite powdery
substancethat Plaintiff mailedtothe Office of the Attorney General,
State of Illinois, to be tested.
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 Twombly2 pleading standard.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
An Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care requires a plaintiff to
show that (1) his medical condition was sufficiently serious, and (2) the defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475-76 (7th Cir. 2017).
Siddiqui and Levey knew that Plaintiff had a history of attempting suicide and harming himself
when placed in the suicide watch cells in the North II unit. In January 2019, Siddiqui and Levey
knew Plaintiff had cut himself with a metal screw, swallowed the screw, passed the screw in a
bowel movement, and swallowed the screw again. Despite this knowledge, Levey discharged
2An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff from the health care unit to be placed in the North II suicide watch unit while the screw
was still in Plaintiff’s body.Siddiquiwas aware of the circumstances buttook no action to remove
Plaintiff from the North II unit and return him to the health careunit under continuous observation.
The allegations are sufficientto allow Count 1 toproceed against Siddiqui and Levey.
The allegations in Count 2 sufficiently state a deliberate indifference against Nurse B

based on her decision not to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment after his attempted suicide
on January 3, 2019. Likewise, Count 3 states a claim against Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major,
and John Does (correctional officers) because they denied Plaintiff medical treatment for injuries
he sustained when they assaulted him. See Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 1996) (failure
to obtain medical assistance for an inmate who has been assaulted may constitute deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need). Accordingly, Count 2 will proceed against Nurse B and
Count 3 will proceed against Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, and John Does (correctional
officers).
Use of Excessive Force

“Correctional officers violate the Eighth Amendment when they use force not in a good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose
of causing harm.” Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998, 1006 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, and JohnDoes (correctional officers)
attacked Plaintiff at Chitty’srequest,punching, kicking, and choking him after the January 7, 2019
attempted poisoning incident. The purpose was to recover and destroy the evidence of the
attempted poisoning and to deter Plaintiff from reporting Nurse Chitty’s attempt to kill him.
Counts 4and 5sufficiently state claimsagainst Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, and John Does
(correctional officers) for use of excessive force and Chitty for inciting the excessive force.
Intentional Disregard of a Known Suicide Risk
Like all Eighth Amendment claims, a claim involving attempted suicide includes an
objective and a subjective element, which requires the plaintiff to show: (1) the harm that befell
him was objectively, sufficiently serious, and posed a substantial risk to his health or safety, and
(2) the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk to his health and

safety. Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 832 (1994)). Suicide, even attempted suicide, qualifies as a serious harm. Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 733 (7th Cir. 2001). In the case of an attempted suicide, however, the
second element requires a dual showing that the defendant: (1)subjectively knew the prisoner was
at substantial risk of committing suicide, and (2) intentionally disregarded the risk. Collins, 462
F.3d at 761 (citations omitted). Hill, Schott, Warden Levey, and Lashbrook knew Plaintiff had a
history of attempting to kill and/or harm himself when placed in the North II suicide watch cells.
Despite their awareness of his known risk of suicide, they allowed Plaintiff to be placed in North
II during the month of January 2019. Count 6 will proceed against Hill, Schott, Levey, and

Lashbrook.
Negligent Spoliation Claims
The negligent spoliation claims in Counts 7, 8, and 9 arise under Illinois state law.
Although Illinois does not recognize a claim for intention spoliation of evidence, a plaintiff can
bring a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence. Borsellino v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 477
F.3d 502, 509-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 652 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ill.
1995)). Negligent spoliation is not an independent tort but rather is a type of negligence. Id. As
such, Plaintiff must allege a duty to protect the evidence allegedly destroyed, a breach of that duty,
causation, and damages. Id. As a general principle, there is no duty to preserve evidence under
Illinois law. Olivarius v. Tharaldson Prop. Management, Inc., 695 F.Supp.2d 824, 829 (N.D.Ill.
2010) (citing Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 652 N.E.2d 267, 269–70 (Ill. 1995)). A duty to preserve
evidence, however, may arise when a plaintiff satisfies both prongs of the following test: “(1) it
arises by agreement, contract, statute, special circumstance, or voluntary undertaking (called the
‘relationship’ prong), and (2) a reasonable person should have foreseen that certain evidence at

issue was material to a potential civil action (called the ‘foreseeability’ prong).” Olivarius, 695
F.Supp.2d at 829 (citing Dardeen v. Kuehling,821 N.E.2d 227, 231 (Ill.2004)).
Under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint, a special duty could not have arisen by
agreement, contract, statute, or voluntary undertaking. Accordingly, Plaintiff must allege facts
evidencing a “special circumstance” giving rise to a duty to preserve the camera footage. Illinois
courts have explained that to establish a special circumstance “something more than possession
and control are required, such as a request by the plaintiff to preserve the evidence and/or the
defendant’s segregation of the evidence for the plaintiff's benefit.” Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc.,
979 N.E.2d 22, 31 (Ill.2012).

The allegations in Counts 7,8,and9sufficientlystate negligent spoliation claims. Count
7 will proceed against Chitty, Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, and John Does (correctional
officers) for destroyingthe majority of the white powdery substanceused in theattempt to poison
Plaintiff. And, against Jane Doe nurse for failing to preserve the evidence at Plaintiff’s request.
Count 8 will proceed against Warden Lashbrookfor failing to preserve and/or destroying camera
footage from January 3, 2019and January 7, 2019. AndCount 9will proceed against Senor-Moore
and Higgerson for destruction of the white powdery substance that Plaintiff mailed to the Office
of the Attorney General to be tested for his attempted poisoning claim.
Identification of Unknown Defendants
Plaintiff will have the opportunity to engage in limited discovery to ascertain the identity
of the unknown defendants Nurse B, John Does (correctional officers), and Jane Doe (nurse).See
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). In this case, Warden
Lashbrook is already named in her official capacity and shall respond to discovery aimed at

identifying the unknown defendants associated with Menard.Guidelines for discovery will be set
by the undersigned judge. Once the names of the unknown defendants are discovered, Plaintiff
shall file a motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of the generic designations
in the case caption and throughout the Complaint.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count 1 will proceed against Siddiqui and Levey.
Count2will proceed against Unknown Party (Nurse B).Count3will proceed against Walker,
Engelage, Brooks, Major,and John Does (correctional officers).Count 4will proceed against
Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major,andJohn Does.Count5will proceed against Chitty.Count

6will proceed against Hill, Schott, Levey, andLashbrook.Count7will proceed against Chitty,
Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, John Does, and Jane Doe (Nurse). Count 8 will proceed
against Lashbrook. Count 9 will proceed against Sierra Senor-Moore and Christopher
Higgerson.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Lashbrook
(individual and official capacities), Siddiqui, Levey, Walker, Engelage, Brooks, Major, Chitty,
Hill, Schott, Lashbrook, Sierra Senor-Moore and Christopher Higgerson (individual
capacities): (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and
(2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a
copy of the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each defendant’s place of employment
as identified by Plaintiff.If a defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons
(Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on that defendant, and the Court will require that
defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.
Service shall not be made on Defendants Unknown Party (Nurse B), John Does
(correctional officers), and Jane Doe (nurse) until Plaintiff has identified them by name in a
properly filed amended complaint.Plaintiff is ADVISEDthat it ishis responsibility to provide the
Court with the names and service addresses for these individuals.
With respect to a defendant who no longer can be found at the work address provided by
Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with thatdefendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, his or her last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms
as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be

retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or
disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter shall be REFERRED to a
UnitedStates Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(3) and 28U.S.C.
§636(c),if all parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, despite the fact
that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable,
regardless of whether Plaintiff files a Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 18, 2019
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

1]

Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendantsof thislawsuit
and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants
will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will likely take at least60 days
from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it

will take 90 days or more. When all of the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a
Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures.
Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions,
in order to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions
filed before defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the
Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151179. Public record. Not legal advice.