Brown v. Mitchell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEARNELL BROWN, R31512, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-02193-SMY

)

WARDEN DAVID MITCHELL, )

WARDEN TARRY WILLIAMS, and )

IDOC DIRECTOR JOHN/JANE DOE, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Learnell Brown, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) and currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations that occurred while he was on suicide watch at

Pinckneyville Correctional Center.1 This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of

the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any part of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant

must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-28): Plaintiff

suffers from serious mental illness and has a history of suicide attempts involving self-

strangulation. During his incarceration at Pinckneyville, he was placed on crisis watch from

September 24, 2021 until January 10, 2022. While on suicide watch, prison officials intentionally

1 Plaintiff originally filed his Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois. See Brown v. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:22-cv-050295 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 26, 2022). The case was

transferred to the Southern District of Illinois on September 20, 2022 because Plaintiff’s claims arose at a

prison located in this federal judicial district. (See Docs. 8 and 9).

provided him with strangulation devices on two occasions.

The first incident occurred on October 17, 2021, when an unknown officer gave Plaintiff a

food tray containing an extension cord. Plaintiff used the cord to attempt suicide the same day

and was treated by medical staff for injuries to his neck. Plaintiff knows the cord was intended for

him because his name and prisoner identification number were written on the tray holding it.

The second incident occurred on December 17, 2021, when several guards issued Plaintiff

a mattress with a long, loose strap. The guards were aware of his history of self-harm and intended

to give him the strangulation device to facilitate self-strangulation. He used the strap to attempt

suicide on or around the same date.

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this

pro se action:

Count 1: Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

risk of self-harm when they gave him with an extension cord on his

food tray on or around October 17, 2021, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment.

Count 2: Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

risk of self-harm when they issued him a mattress with a long, loose

strap on or around December 17, 2021, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.2

Discussion

Both claims implicate the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual

punishment of convicted persons. U.S. CONST. Amend VIII. To state a claim under the Eighth

Amendment, a plaintiff must set forth allegations suggesting that he suffered from an “objectively,

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”).

sufficiently serious harm” and the defendants responded with “deliberate indifference to his health

or safety.” Kupsky v. McLaren, 748 F. App’x 74 (7th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted)). A suicide

attempt presents an obvious, serious harm. Id. at 76. In that context, deliberate indifference occurs

when a prison official is aware that a prisoner “may imminently seek to take his own life and . . .

fail[s] to take reasonable steps to prevent the inmate from performing this act.” Id. (citation

omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not survive screening against Warden Mitchell, Warden

Williams, or IDOC Director Doe. Plaintiff names these defendants in their individual capacities,

and he seeks money damages against them. However, because he does not mention them in his

statement of the claim or exhibits, the Court is left guessing what role any individual played in the

alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Section 1983 liability hinges on personal

involvement in a constitutional deprivation, and the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable

in this context. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); Stockton v. Milwaukee Cnty.,

44 F.4th 605, 619 (7th Cir. 2022). Therefore, Plaintiff must name the individual defendants who

he alleges violated his rights and describe what each one did, or failed to do, through his or her

own conduct, to cause the deprivation. Id.

Plaintiff must also associate specific defendants with specific claims. Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 555. If he does not know the exact names of each defendant, he may use generic identifiers

when referring to each defendant in the case caption and statement of his claim, e.g., John/Jane

Doe 1, John/Jane Doe 2, etc. Martin v. Noble Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, App. No. 21-cv-1214, 2021

WL 5505407, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021). He can then use discovery to learn the names of each

individual and identify them with particularity in a motion for substitution of defendants or an

amended complaint. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009).

For the foregoing reasons, as currently drafted, the Complaint fails to state any claim for

relief against the named defendants. Consequently, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to file a First

Amended Complaint by April 14, 2023. The First Amended Complaint will be subject to review

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Should Plaintiff file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly recommended that he use

the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He should label the form “First

Amended Complaint” and use the case number for this action (No. 22-cv-2193-SMY). Plaintiff

should identify each defendant in the case caption and include sufficient allegations against each

defendant to describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate his constitutional rights, see

DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (a successful complaint generally

alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how. . . .”), and as much as possible, include the relevant

facts in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where necessary to identify the actors

and each defendant’s actions.

An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the

original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1

(7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a previously filed

Complaint. The First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any

previous pleading.

If Plaintiff fails to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or

consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the case will be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief, failure to comply with a court order, and for

failure to prosecute his claims. The dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). To facilitate Plaintiff’s compliance with this Order, the Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form.

Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court 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. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/14/2023

s/ Staci M. Yandle

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge