# Mrdjenovich v. Menard Correctional Center

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 22, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10152811

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 22, 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/10152811

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the state and state agencies are not subject to suit under Section 1983 for money damages
- holding pro se Complaint failed to state a claim against individual mentioned in body of Complaint but not specified in the caption
- noting that an 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.”

## Opinion text

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

ANTHONY MRDJENOVICH, #Y37366, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Cause No. 3:20-cv-00324-RJD
)
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )
N. BEBOUT, )
SGT. DOEDING, )
C/O JAMES, )
JOHN DOE 1, )
JOHN DOE 2, )
JANE DOE 1, and )
MENARD HEALTH CARE UNIT, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daly , Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Anthony Mrdjenovich, an inmate in the Illinois Department of
Corrections, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights that occurred while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center. He asserts violations of the Eighth Amendment and seeks monetary damages.
(Doc. 1).
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is

1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in light of his consent to the full jurisdiction of
a Magistrate Judge and the Defendants’ limited consent to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, as
set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Illinois Department of Corrections, Wexford
Health Sources, and this Court.
legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages
from an immune defendant must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint (Doc. 1): On December
3, 2019, Plaintiff was called out of his cell for a mental health appointment. C/O Campbell
was working the east cell house sick and mental health care. C/O Campbell called him a
“bitch” and Plaintiff struck C/O Campbell knocking him to the ground. C/O Wilson
tackled Plaintiff and then, once he was on the ground, punched him in the back of the

head. Plaintiff put his hands behind his back to show he was not resisting. He did not
assault any other officers and did not receive any punches to his face or body at that time.
Plaintiff laid on the ground with his hands behind his back for approximately 15
seconds with four or five officers on him. He was not resisting. Sgt. Doeding then sprayed
mace on Plaintiff’s head and face. Handcuffs were placed on him so tight that his right

hand went numb. As he was being escorted out of east house, C/O James and 2 John
Does punched him in the torso and kneed him in the face, torso, and legs. Sgt. Doeding
and Lt. Bebout watched the officers assault him and did not step in to stop it.
Plaintiff was escorted to the health care unit. His head was hanging toward the
ground and C/O James kneed him in his right eye seven or eight times while other

officers pulled up on his hands violently. C/O James and the 2 John Does hit Plaintiff’s
head on the health care unit gate to open it. They took him into the hallway and threw
him to the ground. A few minutes later they took him in a room and slammed him face
down on a medical table. They continued to assault him for two to three minutes. He felt
like he was going to die. They stopped when a nurse came by but then resumed assaulting
him when she left. One of the officers tried to break his ankle.

Jane Doe Nurse checked his injuries but did nothing for him. His right eye was
bruised and swollen shut, his left knee was cut open, mace was on his face and body, his
right ankle was severely sprained, and his right hand was numb. He was escorted out of
the health care unit and violently dragged to segregation. C/O James and the 2 John Does
continued to assault him and then threw him in a cell handcuffed without any water. He
was in excruciating pain and could barely stand. He put his face on the damp floor in the

cell to help with the mace burning his face. Approximately twenty minutes later an officer
moved him to a different cell where he was able to rinse his face and body with water
from the sink.
Plaintiff was questioned about the assault on C/O Campbell but never asked how
he sustained his injuries. He was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center where his

injuries were documented and he was provided medical treatment. He continues to have
numbness and pain in his right hand, blurred vision in his right eye, PTSD, panic attacks,
and nightmares.
Preliminary Dismissals
Menard Correctional Center and Menard Health Care Unit are not persons subject

to suit for money damages under section 1983 and will, therefore, be dismissed. See
Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding the state and state agencies are
not subject to suit under Section 1983 for money damages).
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
claims in this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against James, John
Doe 1, John Doe 2 for assaulting Plaintiff on December 3, 2019,
against Doeding for spraying Plaintiff with mace, and against
Bebout and Doeding for failing to intervene to stop the
assault.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs claim against Jane Doe 1 for failing to provide medical
care for the injuries Plaintiff sustained in the assault on
December 3, 2019.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against
James, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 for placing Plaintiff in a
cell that lacked any means for him to clean the mace from his
face and body.

Count 4: Failure to train claim against the Menard Warden and Bebout.

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. See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)
(noting that an 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.”).
Count 1
The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from being subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment. See Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 909 (7th Cir. 2005). “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). Under certain circumstances, “a state actor's failure to

intervene renders him or her culpable under § 1983.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th
Cir. 1994). A failure to intervene claim may be asserted against officers who were present
when the inmate's constitutional rights were violated by a different officer if the officers
had reason to know that excessive force was being used, and the officers had a “realistic
opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from occurring.” Abdullahi v. City of
Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 774 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Yang, 37 F.3d at 284 (7th Cir. 1994)).

Plaintiff’s Complaint includes sufficient allegations to proceed on an excessive force
claim against Doeding, James, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 and a failure to intervene claim
against Doeding and Bebout.
Count 2
Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on

cruel and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s
serious medical needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state a claim, a
prisoner must show that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition,
and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint includes sufficient allegations to proceed on deliberate indifference

claim against Jane Doe 1.
Count 3
Prison conditions that deprive inmates of basic human needs—food, medical care,
sanitation, or physical safety—may violate the Eighth Amendment. James v. Milwaukee
Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992). Two elements are required to establish a
constitutional violation. First, an objective element requires a showing that the conditions

deny the inmate “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” creating an
excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
The second requirement is a subjective element—establishing a defendant's culpable state
of mind, which is deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the
inmate from those conditions. Id. at 842. Plaintiff claims he was placed in a cell with no
means to clean the mace from his face and body. Ordinarily, a short-term deprivation of

access to facilities or sanitary supplies would not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. See Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988); Caldwell v. Miller, 790
F.2d 589, 600-01 (7th Cir. 1986). However, Plaintiff had allegedly just been sprayed with
a significant quantity of mace, violently assaulted, and was in physical distress. Under
these circumstances, placing him in a cell that lacked any means for him to clean the

chemical residue from his face and body could constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed on the unconstitutional
conditions of confinement claim in Count 3 against James, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2.
Count 4
Plaintiff alleges the Menard Warden and Lt. Bebout failed to train their officers on

the way to conduct themselves during the incident. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against
the Menard Warden because he is not named as a defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P 10(a) (the
names of all parties must be included in the case caption); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d
551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding pro se Complaint failed to state a claim against
individual mentioned in body of Complaint but not specified in the caption).
Further, the mere fact that a defendant was a supervisor is insufficient to establish

liability because the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not apply to
actions filed under § 1983. Pacelli v. De Vito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff
refers to only one event and makes no mention of any policy, custom, or training
procedure. There are no allegations regarding any training program or how it is
inadequate. Simply put, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation is insufficient to state a claim.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”);
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009) (“courts should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements”).
Accordingly, Count 4 will be dismissed.
Identification of Doe Defendants

Plaintiff will have the opportunity to engage in limited discovery to ascertain the
identity of the John and Jane Doe Defendant. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv.,
577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). The Warden of Menard Correctional Center will be
added in his or her official capacity to respond to discovery aimed at identifying the Doe
Defendants. Guidelines for discovery will be set by the undersigned judge. Once the

names of the Doe Defendants are discovered, Plaintiff shall file a motion to substitute the
newly identified defendant for the Doe Defendants.
Disposition
The following claims will proceed in this action: Count 1 against N. Bebout, Sgt.
Doeding, C/O James, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2; Count 2 against Jane Doe 1; and Count
3 against C/O James, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2. Count 4 is DISMISSED without

prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD the Warden of Menard Correctional
Center in his or her official capacity as a defendant to respond to discovery aimed at
identifying the Doe Defendants.
Menard Correctional Center and Menard Health Care Unit are DISMISSED with
prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE them as defendants.

The Clerk shall prepare for N. Bebout, Sgt. Doeding, C/O James, and the Warden
of Menard Correctional Center (official capacity only): (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 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 the Defendant, and the Court will require
the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, the Defendant’s 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 and shall not be maintained in the court
file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendants are ORDERED to file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint in a timely manner and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(g). As the Warden of Menard Correctional Center is in the case solely for discovery
purposes, the Warden need not respond to the Complaint. The Warden only needs to
enter an appearance. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants only need
to respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full
amount of the costs, regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the

Clerk of Court and the 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. PROC. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate Defendants of your
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved,
Defendants will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely
take at least 60 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 Defendants have filed their
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 Defendants before filing any motions and 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 specifically directed to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10152811. Public record. Not legal advice.