Headrick v. Chambers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TIMOTHY JAMES HEADRICK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-185-NJR

)

)

SGT. CHAMBERS, C/O BROWN, C/O )

JORDAN, C/O IVORY, CAPTAIN )

COLLINS, C/O EVERETT, C/O )

BRIGGS, C/O MILLER, C/O )

GARDNER, C/O SABO, LT. )

STRUBBERG, C/O WILLIAMS, and )

C/O GUMPER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Timothy James Headrick, an inmate of the Missouri Department of

Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Farmington Correctional Center, brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while he

was detained at the St. Clair County Jail in southern Illinois. In the Complaint, Headricks

alleges unconstitutional conditions of confinement, excessive force, and retaliation claims

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1

1 Although Headrick seeks to raise his claims under the Eighth Amendment, as a pre-trial

detainee, his claims for excessive force and conditions of confinement are properly brought under

the Fourteenth Amendment.

This 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).

The Complaint

Headrick’s Complaint appears to be a log of every grievance/complaint that he

made while housed at St. Clair County. He alleges that he did not receive recreation while

housed at St. Clair County and when he asked about recreation, the officers told him there

were no opportunities for recreation. He also complained about the small portions of food

at mealtime (Id. at p. 7). He also spoke to Correctional Officers Everett, Briggs,

Haggerman, Nichols, Mosley and Sergeant Nichols about the conditions of the jail,

including toilets not working and black mold in his unit (Id.).

On December 29, 2021, he spoke with Correctional Officer Mike about the sewer

being blocked, and he was told that the sewers were like that for years. On August 30,

2021, he made a complaint about the heat not working in his unit (Id.). The sink also did

not produce cold water. Again, he spoke to Mike as well as Officer Ivory, but nothing

was fixed. He alleges that he was subjected to super cold living conditions and no

drinking water. On December 30, 2021, he informed Correctional Officer Sabo about the

issue with the drinking water and the sewage (Id.). He also complained about the lack of

recreational opportunities. On December 31, 2021, he spoke to Officer Williams about the

lack of recreational activity, but Williams told him to suck it up and deal with it (Id. at

p. 8). He asked him about the sewer issues and the small portions for meals, but Williams

stated that he could not do anything about it (Id.). He also alleges that Captain Collins is

responsible for the conditions of the jail because he oversees the grievance process (Id. at

p. 9).

On January 5, 2022, Sergent Chambers, Correctional Officer Brown, Correctional

Officer Sabo, Correctional Officer Jordan, Correctional Officer Gumper, and Correctional

Officer Ivory, pulled him out of his cell and Sergeant Chambers told him to stop writing

grievances (Id. at p. 8). Headrick replied that he would not stop. After a short back and

forth about his grievances, Headrick was ordered back into his cell. He again indicated

that he would not stop filing grievances. Brown grabbing Headrick and pulled him out

of his cell. Chambers then told the officer to beat Headrick, and Brown, Sabo, Jordan,

Gumper, and Ivory punched Headrick and bent his arms over his head (Id.). He handed

grievances about the incident to Everett, Briggs, Miller, and Gardner.

On January 25, 2022, Headrick was beat up by multiple detainees in his cellblock.

Correctional Officer Williams was asleep in the control booth and did not see the fight

(Id. at p. 10). He gave copies of the grievance he wrote about the incident to Correctional

Officer Briggs, Officer Ivory, Officer Owens, and Officer Lewis.

Preliminary Dismissals

Headrick identifies a number of individuals in his statement of claim who are not

listed as defendants or included in the caption of his Complaint. This includes:

Correctional Officer Haggerman, Sergeant Nichols, Correctional Officer Nichols,

Correctional Officer Mosely, and Correctional Officer Mike. Because these individuals

are not identified as defendants, any potential claims against them are DISMISSED

without prejudice.

Headrick also seeks to raise a claim against Captain Collins because he is in charge

of the jail and oversees the grievance process. But Headrick fails to state a claim against

Collins because the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisory liability) does not apply

to actions filed under Section 1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008).

Further, neither he nor the individuals Headrick turned his grievances into (including

Briggs, Ivory, Owens, Lewis, Everett, and Gardner) can be liable for denying or

mishandling the grievances. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he

alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause

or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”). Thus any potential claims

related to his grievances are also DISMISSED without prejudice.

Although Headrick identifies Stubberg as a defendant in the caption of his case,

he fails to include any allegations against him in the statement of claim. Accordingly,

Stubberg is also DISMISSED without prejudice.

Finally, Headrick seeks to allege a failure to protect claim against Williams for not

stopping the assault on January 26, 2022. Although he alleges that Williams did not break

up the fight, he does not allege that Williams was aware of the threat to Headrick or that

he was aware of the fight earlier. In fact, Headrick alleges that Williams did not stop the

fight earlier because he was asleep in the control booth. Under the Fourteenth

Amendment, Headrick must allege that Williams acted “purposefully, knowingly, or

perhaps even recklessly.” Pittman by and through Hamilton v. County of Madison, Illinois,

970 F.3d 823, 827-28 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353

(7th Cir. 2018)). But at most, Headrick alleges that Williams acted negligently by sleeping

during the assault. Further, he fails to allege that Williams knew of a risk to Headrick

from the other detainees. Miranda, 900 F.3d at 353 (it is not enough to show negligence or

gross negligence). Accordingly, his failure to protect claim is also DISMISSED without

prejudice.

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide

this pro se action into the following three counts:

Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim

against Everett, Briggs, Sabo, Williams, and Ivory for the

conditions Headrick faced including: lack of adequate

drinking water, lack of recreation, black mold, backed-up

sewers, inadequate food, and lack of heat.

Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against

Chambers, Brown, Sabo, Jordan, Gumper, and Ivory for the

use of force on January 5, 2022.

Count 3: First Amendment retaliation claim against Chambers,

Brown, Sabo, Jordan, Gumper, and Ivory for the use of force

against Headrick for filing grievances.

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 Twombly pleading

standard.2

At this stage, Headrick states a Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement

claim in Count 1 against Everett, Briggs, Sabo, Williams, and Ivory. Hardeman v. Curran,

933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (“objective inquiry applies to all Fourteenth Amendment

conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees”). He also states an

excessive force claim in Count 2 against Chambers, Brown, Sabo, Jordan, Gumper, and

Ivory, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015), and Lombardo v. City of St. Louis,

141 S.Ct. 2239, 2241 (2021), as well as a retaliation claim in Count 3 against Chambers,

Brown, Sabo, Jordan, Gumper, and Ivory. Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir.

2012); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002).

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Everett, Briggs, Sabo,

Williams, and Ivory. Count 2 shall proceed against Chambers, Brown, Sabo, Jordan,

Gumper, and Ivory. Count 3 shall proceed against Chambers, Brown, Sabo, Jordan,

Gumper, and Ivory. Miller, Strubberg, Collins, and Gardner are DISMISSED without

prejudice.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Everett, Briggs, Sabo, Ivory,

Chambers, Brown, Jordan, Williams, and Gumper: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and

2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (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”).

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 the defendants’ place of employment as identified by

Headrick. 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.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Headrick,

the employer shall furnish the Clerk of Court with the defendant’s current work address,

or, if not known, 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. 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 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues

stated in this Merit Review Order.

If judgment is rendered against Headrick, and the judgment includes the payment

of costs under Section 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).

Finally, Headrick 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: May 3, 2022 Tl (

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District 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, the defendants will enter their 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’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all

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, 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.