The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIC GEORGE GOLDEN, #B05324 )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-01205-SMY
)
ROB JEFFREYS, )
JOHN BALDWIN, )
JANET JAIMET, )
LARUE LOVE, )
CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, )
PERCY MYERS, )
CHRISTINE BROWN, )
DAN VAREL, )
CHARLENE HALE, )
AMY BURLE, )
SARAH JOHNSON, )
LT. WALLS, )
LT. BAKER, )
OFFICER FLATT, )
ALISA DEARMOND, and )
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE CO., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Eric George Golden, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed the
instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center. This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of
the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any portion of the First Amended
Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money
damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
First Amended Complaint
Golden makes the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11): Upon
arrival at Pinckneyville Correctional Center on September 13, 2017, Golden had a medical permit
for “low bunk, low gallery, daily showers, waist chain, special boots/shoes, slow walk, supplies,
shower chair, no stairs, no leg irons, extra mattress, and extra pillow.” (Id., p. 11). Dr. Myers
issued an order on September 17, 2017 for a medical permit that included special boots/shoes.
When the Pinckneyville medical permit was written, it did not include the boots, leg iron
restriction, extra mattress, or extra pillow like his prior medical permit.
Golden complained about the missing items to an LPN in November 2017, but she only
mentioned the extra pillow in the medical record. A few days later, he complained to another
medical provider that he needed an extra pillow and mattress. Golden received a note from
Christine Brown stating that his extra pillow and mattress had been ordered and should be received
the next week. After a month, Plaintiff reached out to the cell house counselor, who responded
stating the mattress and pillow had been ordered. He received an air mattress in December 2017,
but the seam opened on the air mattress the night he received it. He was sleeping on the steel
bedframe by the next morning.
Golden was taken to segregation for intimidation, threat, and disobeying a direct order on
January 15, 2018. Lt. Wall told him that he could not keep his gym shoes. Golden told Wall he
is an amputee with a medical permit for special boots/gym shoes, and he could not wear the state
issued shoes. Lt. Wall called Christine Brown who stated that there was no medical reason for
Golden to keep the gym shoes. For several days, Golden walked around with no shoes, which
caused a painful callus to grow on his stump and placed him at risk for an infection. He could not
maintain the cleanliness of his stump. He received a notice that there was no authorization or
medical reason on file for the boots and that his prosthetic sleeves and prosthetic socks were
deemed excessive by the healthcare unit.
Golden filed a grievance regarding the confiscation of his shoes. Grievance officer Flatt
came to his cell and told him that he won the grievance. Flatt stated the boots would be placed in
his property box, but they were not there when he was released from segregation. He wrote a letter
to Warden Love about the boots. He filed another grievance on February 26, 2018, complaining
that Flatt had advised him he won his grievance regarding the boots and they would be placed back
in his property but that had not happened. Counselor Hess responded that the healthcare unit
administrator stated there was no medical need for the boots as he had high top gym shoes.
Plaintiff was sent to PT Dan Varel for an assessment regarding his supplies including the
boots. During the assessment, Varel noted no skin breakdown despite the fact that he had a large
callus that was causing pain. Varel stated he did not see any justification for the boots, but deferred
to a prosthetist’s opinion.
Golden wrote a letter to Wardens Thompson and Jaimet on March 18, 2018 regarding his
boots. Warden Thompson responded that the boots would be returned to Golden shortly and asked
him to be patient. He received a response from Warden Jaimet stating “issue resolved.” The ARB
denied his grievance; Sarah Johnson and John Baldwin failed to correct the violation of his
constitutional and ADA rights. He also received a letter from Christine Brown on May 16, 2018
stating he was not wearing his boots, which was a lie.
Golden was sent to unit 3 where Lt. Baker got angry because he was writing grievances
and constantly complaining about his boots. One day, Lt. Baker decided Golden could no longer
have “medical” showers with the other disabled prisoners. Instead, he had to shower with three
other prisoners, with their private parts inches from his face because he sits on a low shower chair.
Golden filed a grievance, which was denied by Amy Burle and John Baldwin. Lt. Baker continued
harassing Golden and took him to segregation on false allegations.
Alisa Dearmond FNPC was used by security staff to change and manipulate records and
permits. She discontinued Golden’s waist chain permit because the Lt. wanted to put him in a blue
box during a medical furlough. Grievance officer Charlene Hale did not investigate the grievance
he wrote on the matter. There is a pattern of behavior promoted by Wexford medical providers to
deny serious medical treatment.
Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court designates the
following claims in this pro se action:1
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to Golden’s serious medical needs by
denying him of personal property he requires as an amputee.
Count 2: Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
and/or Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. claim
against Defendants for depriving Golden of personal property he
requires as an amputee and denying him “medical” showers.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for denying
Golden’s grievances.
Count 4: First Amendment claim against Baker for taking away Golden’s
“medical” showers and taking him to segregation on false
allegations.
Count 5: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Baker for taking Golden to
segregation on false allegations.
Discussion
Count 1
Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical
1 Any claim mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed without prejudice
as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard. 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 that is plausible on its face.”).
needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state a claim, a prisoner must allege
facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the
defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id.
Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed on the claim in Count 1 against Lt. Wall and Christine
Brown for depriving him of proper footwear as an amputee while he was in segregation. However,
the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts suggesting deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need by any other defendant and will be dismissed as to the remaining defendants..
Count 2
Individual employees of IDOC cannot be sued under the ADA or RA; the proper defendant
is the relevant state department or agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Jaros v. Illinois Dep't of
Corrs, 684 F.3d 667, 670 n.2 (7th Cir. 2012). The ADA confers rights on “qualified individual[s]
with a disability” who are denied access to “services, programs, or activities of a public entity.”
42 U.S.C. § 12132. While some courts have recognized access to showers as an activity under the
ADA/RA, Plaintiff does not complain that he did not have access to showers. And he cannot state
a claim related to improper treatment of his medical condition under the ADA/RA. Bryant v.
Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, Count 2 will be dismissed.
Count 3
Golden asserts a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the denial of his grievances.
Prison officials incur no liability under § 1983 if they fail or refuse to investigate a prisoner's
complaints or grievances. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). And “[p]rison
officials who simply processed or reviewed inmate grievances lack personal involvement in the
conduct forming the basis of the grievance.” Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, Count 3 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Count 4
Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances, exercising First
Amendment rights, or otherwise complaining about their conditions of confinement. See Gomez
v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012). To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege
that “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation
likely to deter such activity; and (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor
in the decision to impose the deprivation.” Hawkins v. Mitchell, 756 F.3d 983, 996 (7th Cir. 2014).
The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are sufficient to proceed on the retaliation claim
in Count 4 against Baker.
Count 5
A false disciplinary ticket will not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if the inmate receives
procedural due process in the disposition of the ticket. Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140
(7th Cir. 1984). There are no allegations in the First Amended Complaint regarding disposition of
the disciplinary ticket. As such, Golden fails to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,
and Count 5 will be dismissed.
Disposition
Count 1 will proceed against Wall and Brown but is DISMISSED as to Jeffreys, Baldwin,
Jaimet, Love, Thompson, Myers, Varel, Hale, Burle, Johnson, Baker, Flatt, Dearmond, and
Wexford. Count 4 will proceed against Baker. Counts 2, 3, and 5 are DISMISSED without
prejudice. Jeffreys, Baldwin, Jaimet, Love, Thompson, Myers, Varel, Hale, Burle, Johnson, Flatt,
Dearmond, and Wexford are DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to terminate them as parties.
The Clerk shall prepare for Wall, Brown, and Baker: (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 First Amended 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 timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First
Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant
to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only 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. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 28, 2022
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge