# Randle v. Butler

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · April 1, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151859

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** April 1, 2020
- **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/10151859

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:16-CV-1191-NJR

JOHN BALDWIN, SYLVIA BUTLER
(AKA SYLVIA LANE), CORY BUMP,
KIMBERLY BUTLER, GAIL WALLS,
and NATHANIEL WARD,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 172) filed by
Defendants John Baldwin (“Baldwin”), Sylvia Butler (AKA Sylvia Lane) (“Lane”),
Kimberly Butler (“Butler”), Cory Bump (“Bump”), Gail Walls (“Walls”), and Nathaniel
Ward (“Ward”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grant in part and denies in
part the Motion for Summary Judgment.
This action is based on the alleged conditions of Plaintiff Charles Randle’s
incarceration at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), a prison operated by the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). Randle filed his complaint on October 28, 2016
(Doc. 1). After the complaint was screened by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Randle was allowed to proceed on four counts (Doc. 13). This Court subsequently granted
summary judgment to certain defendants (Doc. 124), leaving Randle proceeding as
follows:
Count One: Eighth Amendment claim against Butler and Baldwin
for subjecting Randle to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at Menard by placing two inmates in a cell
designed for only one, with double bunks and limited
exercise opportunities outside of the cell.

Count Two: Eighth Amendment claim against Baldwin, Butler and
Walls for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Randle’s
bunion.

Count Three: (formerly Count 4) Eighth Amendment claim against
Butler, Bump, and Ward for failing to protect Randle
from his cellmate, after Randle was attacked and injured
by him in 2016.

Count Four: (formerly Count 6) Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Baldwin, Butler, Lane, and
Walls arising from the denial of adequate mental health
treatment.

All remaining defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 172) on all
counts on August 16, 2019.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Count One:
Randle was incarcerated at Menard for the periods relevant to this action, from
May 2012 until approximately August 2017, after which he was transferred to Stateville
Correctional Center, a different IDOC facility (Doc. 173-1 at 6). During his time at Menard,
Randle stayed in cells in various parts of the prison for certain periods. In his own
deposition, Randle stated that he recalled staying in the following zones within Menard:
West House, East House, North 1, North Uppers, South Uppers, North 2, and Segregation
(Id. at 2). Randle stated that his complaints about cell size had related specifically to the
time that he spent in North 1 from October 2012 through approximately 2015 and again
in 2016, and shorter periods spent in segregation in North 2 in 2012 and 2015 (Id. at 8).
Randle stated that during these periods, space in his cells was restricted to the point that

it was difficult for him to do anything but lie down, leading to anxiety and depression
(Id.). During these periods, Randle states that he often had a cellmate (Id. at 9). During
normal conditions, Randle had yard access when the weather permitted, but Randle
states that he was on lockdown for lengthy periods and often had no yard access (Id.).
Randle was also able to leave his cell to go to the mess hall and occasionally to the
commissary or the library (Id. at 10).

Randle indicates that he attempted to communicate with prison officials about his
issues with the size of his cell (Id. at 11). Specifically, Randle attempted to contact Butler,
the warden of Menard at the time, through the grievance process, and he attempted to
communicate with Baldwin, the director of IDOC, through letters to the Administrative
Review Board (Id. at 12). Randle stated that he did not know for a fact whether either

Butler or Baldwin had received his communications but that he never received a response
from either of them (Id.). Butler has stated in an affidavit that she was never aware of
Randle’s complaints regarding his cell and that assistant wardens at Menard were in
charge of day-to-day operations at the facility during the period in question (Doc. 173-2).
Randle’s medical records indicate that on at least one occasion he complained of his cell

size to a nurse (Doc. 173-5 at 76).
Count Two:
Randle stated in his deposition that he first noticed that he had developed a bunion
in 2012, at which point he went to sick call for treatment (Doc. 173-1 at 12). Randle
subsequently went back to sick call multiple times seeking treatment, he states (Id.).
Randle’s letter to the Administrative Review Board included complaints about his

bunion, and he believed that it would go to Baldwin (Id.). Randle’s grievance addressed
to Butler additionally included complaints related to his bunion (Id.). Randle never spoke
with Baldwin or Butler directly regarding his bunion and had no confirmation that they
ever received his communications (Id.). Randle also filed a grievance with Walls, then the
administrator of the health care unit at Menard, who responded to his grievance
indicating that she saw nothing in his medical records about a bunion and that he should

go to sick call (Id. at 15–16). Randle did seek treatment at sick call, but he was given only
Ibuprofen for his bunion while at Menard (Id. at 17). This is confirmed by Randle’s
medical records, which indicates that he sought treatment for his bunion on July 12, 2016,
and was prescribed Ibuprofen (Doc. 173-5 at 67). Records indicate that on that date,
Randle stated that he had not previously suffered from the bunion (Id.). Randle appears

to have subsequently sought further treatment for his bunion in June 2017, again
requesting orthopedic shoes, and he was a no-show for at least one medical appointment
relating to his bunion (Doc. 182-7 at 3). Randle complained about his bunion again in
September and October 2017, with medical staff noting that he had been denied shoes (Id.
at 4). He filed a grievance regarding his bunion in October 2017, with a response

indicating that his grievance was forwarded to the health care unit and grievance office
(Doc. 182-8 at4). In December 2017, a doctor appears to have indicated that wide gym
shoes might help the bunion and scheduled a podiatry evaluation (Doc. 182-7 at 8).
Randle also filed a grievance on December 18, 2017, complaining of lack of treatment for
his bunion (Doc. 182-8 at 2). A response to that grievance indicated that a copy had been
sent to the health care unit, in addition to the original grievance which was forwarded to

the grievance office (Id.). A grievance officer’s report states that Randle was offered shoes
in December 2017, but that he refused to try them on (Doc. 182-9 at 2). Randle appears to
have still been suffering from his bunion in April 2018, however (Doc. 182-7 at 12–13).
A grievance officer’s report from that period indicates that Randle’s request to purchase
shoes had been denied and that he had elected to purchase the shoes himself (Doc. 182-
10 at 2). Finally, in July 2018, Randle saw a podiatrist who prescribed wide, supportive

shoes (Doc. 182-7 at 17).
Butler has stated in an affidavit that she was never aware of Randle’s complaints
regarding his bunion and deferred to medical staff for decisions regarding medical care
(Doc. 173-2). Walls states that as administrator of the health care unit at Menard, she did
not provide direct care to inmates, but she reviewed Randle’s records upon receiving his

grievance regarding the bunion and directed him to seek treatment at sick call (Doc. 173-
3).
Count Three:
In March 2016, Randle was in Cell 521 in East House at Menard, and his cellmate
was Darwin Dillard (Doc. 173-1 at 17–18). In a grievance filed on April 5, 2016, he stated

that he notified correctional officer Lindsay about threats made against him by Dillard
and that Lindsay passed his complaint on to Lieutenant Smolak (Doc. 182-2 at 2). Smolak
then met with Randle together with Bump and Ward, Randle wrote (Id. at 3). In his
deposition, Randle again stated that he had notified Lindsay and Smolak and that he had
additionally notified correctional officers Bump and Ward and written to Lane, then a
psychologist at Menard, regarding Dillard’s alleged threats (Doc. 173-1 at 17–18, 29–30).

Randle stated that he never asked for protective custody from any of those individuals
(Id.). Medical records indicate that Randle told a mental health practitioner, Jacob
Weatherford, that he was concerned that his cellmate would harm him in February 2016
(Doc. 173-6 at 30). In his deposition, Randle characterized the threats made by Dillard as
“snide remarks and things of that nature[,]” also describing them as “vague threats…as
if he didn’t want me in the cell with him” and saying that Dillard was “threatening to put

his hands on me” (Doc. 173-1 at 20, 24, 29). On March 23, 2016, Randle alleges that an
altercation occurred between Dillard and himself in which Dillard “went for [Randle’s]
mail and he tried to attack [Randle.]”(Doc. 173-1 at 24). Randle later stated that he
wrestled Dillard to the floor, at which point he notified a correctional officer (Id.). After
the incident, correctional officers took Randle to segregation, and Randle recalls that they

did not give him medical treatment (Id. at 28). The next day, on March 24, Randle was
taken for medical treatment, received psychological evaluation from Lane, and also saw
correctional officers Bump and Ward as part of their internal affairs investigation of the
altercation (Id.). Randle states that he was never again placed in a cell with Dillard, and
that after the incident Lane, Bump, and Ward did everything in their power to protect

him from Dillard (Id.). Randle further agreed that Butler did not fail to protect him from
Dillard after the March 23 altercation (Id. at 29). Randle filed grievances on April 3 and 5,
2016, which he believed would reach Butler (Id. at 22). He forwarded a copy of one of
those grievances to the Administrative Review Board (Id.). Butler has stated in an
affidavit that she was never aware of Randle’s complaints regarding his cellmate
(Doc. 173-2).

Bump states that he had never met Randle before March 24, 2016, and that Randle
had never asked him for protective custody (Doc. 173-4). On that date, as a member of
the internal affairs section at Menard, he and Ward met with Randle to investigate a
sexual assault claim made by Randle against his Dillard (Id.).
Count Four:
Randle states that he was already receiving mental health treatment at the time

that he arrived at Menard (Doc. 173-1 at 10). Medical records from January 2016 indicate
that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia by mental health practitioners at Menard
(Doc. 173-6 at 26). He sent grievance letters regarding his mental health treatment to the
Administrative Review Board, which he believed would reach Baldwin (Id. at 32). He
filed a grievance for Butler regarding mental health treatment on May 22, 2016 (Id.).

Randle never heard back from either Butler or Baldwin, and he did not recall if his
communications with Walls encompassed mental health treatment or were limited to his
bunion. Randle did communicate with Lane regarding his mental health treatment, and
she responded to his communication with letters on February 16, 2016 and July 7, 2016,
noting that he was being seen by mental health providers (Id. at 33). Randle agrees that

he was seen regularly by mental health providers during his time at Menard (Id. at 34).
Randle was placed on crisis watch on two occasions in March and April 2016, and he
believed that this crisis watch placement was punitive as he was not “homicidal or
suicidal” but conceded in his deposition that doctors believed that he needed to be on
crisis watch at the time (Id. at 37). Randle’s medical records indicate that after his
altercation with his cellmate, he was placed on crisis watch from March 24 to March 28

because he was perceived to be upset about the altercation, though he repeatedly denied
having homicidal or suicidal ideation (Doc. 173–5 at 20–32). Crisis watch notes from
March 24 indicate that a mental health practitioner who saw him assessed that he was
“anxious and overwhelmed” after the attack and that he was also grieving for his
daughter, who had recently been in a car accident (Doc. 173-6 at 39). During this period,
Randle received one-on-one therapy and was prescribed a number of medications for his

mental health issues (Doc. 173-1 at 37–38).
Randle states that his second stint on crisis watch was due to a letter which he
wrote to Lane, and Randle says that Lane “falsified” his statements in that letter as having
stated that he would harm himself, Lane, or someone else, further alleging that Lane
falsified his medical records (Id. at 40). Copies of the letters sent by Randle to Lane

indicate that a letter from Randle was received on April 4, with another letter received
April 18, the day that Randle was released from crisis watch (Doc. 182-5 at 2–7). In his
letter of April 4, Randle wrote that “if someone is put in this cell with me, I will attack
him right away without warning” (Id. at 4). Randle’s letter of April 18 contains more
generalized threats of violence, as well as direct threats against Lane, with Randle

repeatedly writing that Lane “will suffer” (Id. at 6). Randle says that Dr. Trost confirmed
to him that he was placed on crisis watch due to a desire to “embarrass or humiliate”
Randle after his letter to Lane, further stating that prison officials wished to forcibly
medicate Randle (Doc. 173-1 at 41). Randle states that Trost indicated he would be willing
to provide an affidavit, but no such affidavit has been provided, nor was Randle was ever
forcibly medicated (Id.). Randle’s medical records indicate that he was placed on crisis

watch on April 11, 2016, after he expressed feelings of hopelessness and paranoia and
refused medication, in addition to sending his first letter to Lane (Doc. 173-5 at 37). Notes
indicate that Randle consistently insisted that he did not need to be on crisis watch, saying
of his letter that he “didn’t mean those things” and repeatedly describing the letter as “a
cry for help” (Id. at 41, 52). Medical records confirm that Randle did speak to Dr. Trost on
April 13, 2016, but do not indicate the content of that discussion (Id. at 43). Randle was

again discharged from infirmary crisis watch on April 18, 2016 (Id. at 61–63).
Butler has stated in an affidavit that she was never aware of Randle’s complaints
regarding his mental health treatment and deferred to mental health staff for decisions
regarding mental health care (Doc. 173-2). Walls states that she did not provide mental
health treatment to inmates and was not involved in the administrative oversight of such

treatment (Doc. 173-3).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is only appropriate if the movant “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(a)). Once the moving party has set forth the basis for summary judgment,
the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and
offer specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. FED. R. CIV. P.
56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,232-24 (1986). The nonmoving party must
offer more than “[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts,” to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing

Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)).
In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must view the
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.
Bennington v. Caterpillar Inc., 275 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A “court may not assess the credibility of witnesses,
choose between competing inferences or balance the relative weight of conflicting

evidence[.]” Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, 749 F.3d 581, 586 (7th Cir.
2014) (quoting Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 769 (7th Cir. 2005)).
ANALYSIS
I. Count I: Cell Size
A. Applicable Law

For a prison official to be found liable for inhumane conditions of confinement, the
official must be found to have known of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate
health and safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987,
992 (1996). “The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Knowledge cannot merely be inferred because an individual

“should have perceived” that conditions were inhumane; rather, the Court must examine
a prison official’s subjective state of mind. Id. at 838. Where an official holds a supervisory
role, they must be found to have been personally involved in the wrongful conduct such
that he or she caused or participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Boyce v.
Moore, 314 F.3d 884, 888 (7th Cir. 2002).

An official may be found to have been put on notice, however, by
contemporaneous proceedings that allege similar constitutional violations. Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2013). In Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d at 653, the Seventh
Circuit specifically noted the long history of complaints regarding the size of cells at
Menard, citing Lightfoot v. Walker, 486 F. Supp. 504, 511 (C.D. Ill. 1980), and Munson v.
Hulick, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67125 (S.D. Ill. July 7, 2010). Since the Turley v. Rednour

decision, further proceedings have alleged that cells at Menard are unconstitutionally
small. E.g., Order and Injunction, Turley v. Lashbrook, No. 08-cv-07-SCW (S.D. Ill. Sept. 26,
2018); see also Street v. Butler, No. 14-cv-706 (S.D. Ill.); Meskauskas v. Buskohl, No. 15-cv-431
(S.D. Ill.).
B. Discussion

Butler and Baldwin seek summary judgment on Count One not by arguing that
the size of Randle’s cell was constitutional, but rather based on their contention that they
lacked direct, personal involvement, and that Randle did not suffer harm as a result of
his cell size. Neither of these arguments has merit.
Butler and Baldwin both held supervisory positions that gave them broad

authority over Menard and over all of IDOC, respectively. While evidence has not been
presented regarding the precise scope of their authority, the Court is sufficiently familiar
with IDOC that it is comfortable making some general statements about their
prerogatives—while Butler and Baldwin did not make individual decisions about where
inmates like Randle were celled, they did have significant input into policies regarding
celling inmates at Menard. While neither Butler nor Baldwin likely had sole authority to

determine whether or not individuals were double-celled or under what circumstances,
it is incomprehensible that Butler and Baldwin could honestly contend that they were in
no way personally involved in the chain of logistical and budgetary decisions that led to
the double-celling policies that resulted in Randle’s specific cell placement. Similarly,
Butler and Baldwin cannot honestly claim that they were so far removed from individual
cell placements that they were unaware that the decisions that they made resulted in

double-celling and cramped placements such as Randle’s. The long history of double-
celling at Menard, the numerous lawsuits that have resulted from the practice and the
periodic rebukes given to IDOC by this Court leave little room for doubt that the warden
of Menard and the head of IDOC were aware of the individualized consequences of their
broader logistical and budgetary decisionmaking and ultimately had direct personal

involvement in double-celling inmates such as Randle.
Secondly, it is well established that individuals can be harmed by placement in
cells that are unconstitutionally small, even if they have occasional opportunities to leave
their cells and have not sought medical treatment from problems related to cell size. E.g.,
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981); Smith v. Fairman, 690 F.2d 122 (7th Cir. 1982). The

question is whether the totality of the conditions of confinement are sufficient to establish
a constitutional violation. Madyun v. Thompson, 657 F.2d 868, 874 (7th Cir. 1981). Here,
Butler and Baldwin have presented insufficient facts for the Court to grant summary
judgment on the issue of whether or not conditions were constitutional. Given this
Court’s decision in Turley v. Lashbrook, No. 08-cv-07-SCW (S.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2018), which
dealt with similar cells in the same prison, there is a clear argument that conditions were

not constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied on Count I.
II. Count Two: Medical Treatment for Randle’s Bunion.
A. Applicable Law
In order to succeed in a claim for deliberate indifference based on inadequate
medical treatment, a plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff suffered an objectively
serious risk of harm and (2) that the defendant had a subjectively culpable state of mind

in acting or failing to act in disregard of that risk. Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir.
2011).
For a medical need to be deemed to present an objectively serious risk of harm, the
need must be one that has been diagnosed by a physician, or one that is so obvious that
even a lay person could recognize the necessity of medical attention. Gutierrez v. Peters,

111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). To establish that a defendant was deliberately
indifferent, a plaintiff must show that officials were aware of the facts from which an
inference could be drawn that a serious risk to inmate health exists, and they must also
draw the relevant inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This requires actual knowledge; it is
not enough to show that prison officials should have been aware of the risk of harm.

Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir. 2006). Knowledge of the risk of harm is usually
proven by showing that the inmate complained to prison officials about the conditions in
question. Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 480 (7th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff need not show
that an inmate’s complaints and requests for assistance were literally ignored, but only
that the officials’ responses “were so plainly inappropriate as to permit the inference that
the defendant intentionally or recklessly disregarded his needs.” Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d

516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2000)). An
inmate need not present direct evidence of the official’s state of mind, however, and
circumstantial evidence can be used to infer an official’s knowledge and intent. Miller v.
Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d 190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842).
Where prison officials are not medical professionals, they may rely upon the judgment of
medical professionals as long as they do not actually ignore an inmate’s mistreatment.

Lee v. Young, 533 F.3d 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2008); Diggs v. Ghosh, 850 F.3d 905, 911 (7th Cir.
2017).
Even if a defendant did disregard certain medical needs, this would only rise to
the level of deliberate indifference and result in a constitutional violation if such
disregard was “objectively, sufficiently serious” to constitute the “denial of minimal

civilized measures of life’s necessities.” Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1234, 1240 (7th Cir.
1996) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). In assessing this, the Court
should look to factors including whether any harm actually resulted from the lack of
medical attention. Thomas v. Walton, 461 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
B. Discussion

To start, there is little indication that Baldwin and Butler would ever have been
aware of Randle’s complaints regarding his bunion. Even to the extent that a jury might
be able to find that Baldwin and Butler were aware, neither of those individuals is a
medical professional, and thus they would have been justified in relying on the health
care unit to address any grievances regarding Randle’s medical care. The Court finds that
a reasonable jury could not find that Baldwin or Butler was aware of Randle’s concerns

regarding his bunion, and thus they could not be found to have shown deliberate
indifference. Summary judgment is granted to Baldwin and Butler on this count.
Walls was aware of Randle’s issues with treatment for his bunion, and she was a
medical professional. The question, then, is whether she disregarded his serious medical
needs. Walls does not appear to argue that Randle’s bunion treatment is not a serious
medical need. Rather, her contention is that she responded to his grievance in an

adequate fashion. Randle appears to have filed grievances regarding his bunion on three
occasions, in June 2016 and in October and December of 2017. Walls states that she
received only the first grievance, and that she responded by noting that his medical
records did not indicate that he had sought treatment, recommending that he go to sick
call. Indeed, medical records do not indicate that Randle sought treatment prior to filing

his first grievance, and Walls’s response appears appropriate based on the
documentation that she would have had, even if Randle did in fact seek treatment as
early as 2012. As to Randle’s subsequent grievances, the official responses state that
copies have been sent to the health care unit. As such, a jury might reasonably find that
Walls was aware of those grievances, and failed to respond. Even if that were the case, at

that point Randle had already been seen by doctors regarding his bunion, and medical
records indicate that he may already have refused new shoes on one occasion. He did
finally obtain the orthopedic shoes that he sought not long after filing his 2017 grievances.
Given his medical history, Walls’s lack of response does not seem inappropriate, even if
she was aware of Randle’s 2017 grievances, and the court does not envision how a
reasonable jury could find her behavior to show deliberate indifference. Accordingly,

summary judgment is granted for Walls.
III. Count Three: Failure to Protect
A. Applicable Law
Prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other
prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). In order to state a section 1983 claim
against prison officials for failure to protect, he must establish: (1) that he was

“incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and (2) that the
defendants acted with “deliberate indifference” to his health or safety. Santiago v. Walls,
599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010).
In claiming that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to such a risk, a
plaintiff must show that the harm was objectively serious and that the official had actual

knowledge of the risk. Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 480 (7th Cir. 2015). Actual
knowledge can be shown through circumstantial evidence. Id.
B. Discussion
Here, Randle was never placed in the same cell as Dillard after his altercation on
March 23, 2016, and he acknowledges that Butler, Bump, and Ward took appropriate
steps to protect him after that incident. Thus, Randle can only seek to show that Butler,

Bump, and Ward failed to protect him before the incident occurred. All of these
defendants state that they were unaware of any threats made by Dillard against Randle
prior to the altercation between the two inmates. Randle claims that he spoke to Bump
and Ward prior to the altercation and informed them of threats made by Dillard, but there
is no record of this. Even if a jury were inclined to believe this, Randle himself

characterizes the threats as “vague threats” and “snide remarks,” with nothing more
specific than Dillard saying he would put his hands on Randle. Even if Randle did tell
Bump and Ward of these threats, these kinds of statements don’t seem calculated to put
defendants on notice as to a substantial risk of serious harm, and the Court cannot
envision a reasonable jury finding that Bump and Ward were deliberately indifferent in
failing to take action. As for Butler, there is no indication that she had any awareness of

threats against Randle before the altercation occurred.
Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment to Bump, Ward, and Butler on
this count.
IV. Count Four: Mental Health Care
A. Applicable Law

The standard for deliberate indifference claims based on failure to provide
inadequate mental health treatment is the same as the standard for other types of health
care, discussed above: a plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff suffered an objectively
serious risk of harm and (2) that the defendant acted with a subjectively culpable state of
mind in acting or failing to act in disregard of that risk. Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th

Cir. 2011). Mental health issues have been found to be capable of rising to the level of an
objectively serious risk of harm.
B. Discussion
Baldwin, Butler, Lane, and Walls seek summary judgment on this count. Baldwin
and Butler argue that they were not aware of Randle’s complaints about his care, and

even if they had been aware they would have been justified in following the advice of
medical professionals. Walls argues that she was not a mental health provider and had
no authority over Randle’s mental health care. Thus, she too would have been justified
in relying on the actual mental health staff at Menard. Lane was a psychologist at Menard
during the dates in question and was directly involved in Randle’s mental health care.

She received a number of grievances from Randle regarding his mental health care and
recommended crisis watch for Randle’s own health and safety. She argues that her
response to his grievances was adequate and that she provided appropriate mental health
care.
To start, the Court agrees that there is no indication that Baldwin or Butler was

aware of Randle’s grievances regarding his mental health care. To the extent that they
might have been aware, they would have been justified in relying on the opinions of
qualified mental health practitioners. Similarly, Walls was not responsible for mental
health care and was justified in deferring to those that were responsible for that care.
Summary judgment is granted to Baldwin, Butler, and Walls on this count.

As for Lane, while she was clearly aware of Randle’s concerns regarding his
treatment, she responded to those concerns, reviewing Randle’s treatment and placing
Randle on crisis watch. Indeed, Randle’s claim seems not to be that Lane was indifferent
to his treatment, but rather that he disagrees with the treatment that was prescribed by
Lane and other mental health practitioners who treated him, particularly his repeated
placement on crisis watch. The Court finds nothing out of the ordinary in Randle’s

treatment, given the circumstances. Randle had been engaged in what he claims was a
violent altercation with his cell mate and had been observed to be “anxious and
overwhelmed.” Particularly given his history of schizophrenia, crisis watch seems
appropriate here. Subsequently, Randle sent a letter to Lane that contained threatening
language which spoke of violence against others—Randle himself subsequently
characterized this letter as a “cry for help.” Again, crisis watch placement seems entirely

appropriate here. Overall, the Court finds no merit in the claim that Lane was indifferent
to Randle’s condition. Rather, she was aware of his ongoing mental health treatment and
took appropriate steps to further it. Summary judgment is granted to Lane on this count.
V. Qualified Immunity
Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all counts. To

determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must assess
(1) whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged, and
(2) whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz,
533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001).
Here, the Court has granted summary judgment on all counts except Count One,

Randle’s claim regarding the size of his cell. If, as Randle alleges, he was double-celled in
a cell that was so small as to violate the minimum standards of decency, it would amount
to a constitutional violation. This violation would be clearly established, for the Supreme
Court and courts within this circuit have repeatedly addressed how excessively small
cells and overcrowding can violate the Eighth Amendment, even discussing this in
relation to Menard specifically. Similarly, Butler and Baldwin are not entitled to qualified
immunity based on their positions — while supervisory prison officials must be shown to
have personal involvement in constitutional violations, it is clearly established that they
too may be found liable. Accordingly, the Court denies qualified immunity on Count
One.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS summary judgment to all
Defendants on Counts Two, Three, and Four and DENIES summary judgment to
Defendants John Baldwin and Kimberly Butler on Count One. This action will proceed
on Count One against Baldwin and Butler.
A telephone conference will be set at a later date (when the suspension of jury
trials in the district due to COVID-19 has ended) to set firm dates for a final pretrial
conference and jury trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 1, 2020
Tene ipower?
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 20 of 20

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151859. Public record. Not legal advice.