The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GUY ODOM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 18-cv-116-RJD
)
JEFFREY B. JULIUS, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Guy Odom, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were
violated while he was incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”). In
his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jeffrey Julius shoved and struck him on September 10,
2017. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
against Defendant Julius.
This matter is now before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
37). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Factual Background
On September 10, 2017, while incarcerated at Big Muddy, Plaintiff was in the cafeteria for
mealtime (Deposition of Guy Odom, Doc. 38-1 at 4). In the cafeteria, inmates are directed by the
kitchen supervisor to stand in line, grab a premade tray, and sit down and eat their meal (Id. at 4-5).
When it was Plaintiff’s turn to grab his premade tray, he asked the kitchen supervisor for a
different tray that did not have flies around it (Id. at 4). The supervisor told Plaintiff no, and
Page 1 of 5
indicated he needed to grab his tray (Id. at 5). Plaintiff again asked the supervisor for a different
tray (Id.). Defendant Julius intervened and told Plaintiff he had to leave (Id. at 4). According to
Plaintiff, Defendant placed his hand on Plaintiff’s shoulder and shoved him while Defendant was
telling Plaintiff to leave (Id. at 4, 6). Plaintiff attempted to explain the circumstances when
Defendant struck Plaintiff on his lip, causing it to bleed (Id. at 6). According to Defendant Julius,
during this interaction, Plaintiff reached back with a clenched fist and drew back with his right
hand in an attempt to strike Defendant (Declaration of Jeffrey Julius, Doc. 38-2 at ¶ 6). Plaintiff
disputes Defendant’s assertions and attests he was not combative (Plaintiff’s Affidavit, Doc. 41 at
3, ¶ 1). Defendant asserts that he struck Plaintiff with his right hand, closed fist, on the left side of
Plaintiff’s face to defend against Plaintiff’s attack (Doc. 38-2 at ¶ 7). Then, four officers tackled
Plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him (Doc. 38-1 at 7). Plaintiff was taken to the shower
area in segregation and examined by a nurse (Id. at 8). The nurse cleaned the cut on Plaintiff’s lip
(Id.). Plaintiff did not receive any stitches or further medical treatment (Id. at 10). Plaintiff
testified he has a scar from this incident, and experienced pain and difficulty eating for
approximately one week (Id.).
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also
Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a properly supported motion for summary
judgment is made, the adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue
Page 2 of 5
for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine issue of
material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In determining a summary judgment motion, the Court views the
facts in the light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving
party. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted).
Discussion
The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” and has been
interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to encompass the “unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain” upon prisoners in a correctional institution. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,
296, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97
S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). In excessive force cases, “[t]he central question is “whether
force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir.
2004). “In making that determination, several factors are relevant, including the need for the
application of the force, the amount of force applied, the threat an officer reasonably perceived, the
effort made to temper the severity of the force used, and the extent of the injury that force caused to
an inmate.” Id. at 504. With regard to the last of these factors, while a plaintiff need not
demonstrate a significant injury to state a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment,
“a claim ordinarily cannot be predicated on a de minimis use of physical force.” DeWalt v.
Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 620 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 9–10). Indeed, “the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from
Page 3 of 5
constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of
a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9–10 (citation and internal
quotations omitted). Therefore, not every “malevolent touch by a prison guard” gives rise to a
federal cause of action, even if the use of force in question “may later seem unnecessary in the
peace of a judge's chambers.” Id. at 9 (citation and quotation omitted).
In this instance, Defendant Julius asserts summary judgment in his favor is warranted
because he used only minimal force to maintain order and discipline and Plaintiff did not suffer a
substantial injury. Plaintiff testified Defendant told Plaintiff to leave dietary and, while Plaintiff
was attempting to explain his issue, Defendant struck Plaintiff on his lip. Defendant concedes he
struck Plaintiff with a closed fist on the left side of his face, but asserts such action was necessary
and appropriate because Defendant feared Plaintiff was about to strike him. Defendant also notes
Plaintiff had failed to follow direct orders to leave dietary. The central inquiry in claims of
excessive force is whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833,
837 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court cannot find as a matter of law that the force employed by
Defendant was applied in good faith and not for purposes of causing harm. Plaintiff disputes
Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff was preparing to strike Defendant. Further, although it
appears Plaintiff may have failed to adhere to an order to leave dietary, the Court cannot find that
striking Plaintiff in his face with a closed fist was an appropriate use of force, in consideration of
the Fillmore factors, cited above. Finally, the Court disagrees with Defendant’s characterization
that the force applied was minimal because Plaintiff suffered only a cut to his lip. Plaintiff
testified he has an enduring scar from the cut, and experienced pain for approximately one week.
For these reasons, the Court finds a reasonable jury could find Defendant used excessive force
Page 4 of 5
against Plaintiff on September 10, 2017, and Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
Defendant is also not entitled to qualified immunity as it was clearly established at the time
of the events in question that applying force in a manner inconsistent with maintaining or restoring
discipline implicates an inmate’s constitutional rights.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Julius’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5