The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER R. PRICE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-2805-RJD
)
)
LT. ROBINSON, LT. JACK, )
SERGEANT JOHN DOE #1, JOHN )
DOE #2 PLACEMENT OFFICER, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher R. Price, who at the time he filed his Complaint was an
inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while he was housed at
Centralia Correctional Center. In the Complaint, Price alleges Defendants failed to protect
him from an inmate assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 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
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full
jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of
Corrections to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding between this Court and the Illinois Department of Corrections.
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
In his Complaint, Price makes the following allegations: On February 25, 2022,
Price was released from segregation at Centralia Correctional Center (Doc. 1, p. 16). He
informed John Doe #1, a sergeant who worked the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, that he
could not be released to East 3 cellhouse because there was an individual in the cellhouse
who harassed him due to Price being a homosexual (Id.). Price also indicated that he was
on the vulnerable list (Id. at p. 18). Price does not identify this individual in his Complaint.
John Doe #1 talked to John Doe #2, a placement officer, but ultimately told Price that
there was no room in any other cellhouse and he would have to go to East 3 (Id. at p. 16).
Price spoke to Lieutenant Jack about the situation, but Lt. Jack indicated that there were
no protective custody cells at Centralia for Price (Id.). Price also spoke to Lt. Robinson but
was again told that he had to transfer to East 3 (Id.).
Price transferred to East 3 and learned that he would be on the same side of the
cellhouse as the individual with which he had a conflict (Id. at p. 17). Price informed the
commanding officer in East 3 that being in the same cellhouse would be a problem for
him, but he was still placed in the cellhouse. The individual approached Price and started
harassing him. Price informed an officer that the living situation would not work with
the individual at issue. Price returned to his cell to retrieve his property and the
individual attacked him, punching Price in the face several times (Id.). Price received
serious injuries to his face, including a cut on the left side of his eye and a substantial
fracture in his face (Id. at pp. 17-18).
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
count:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against John
Doe #1, John Doe #2, Lt. Jack, and Lt. Robinson for
transferring Price to the cellhouse despite knowing that he
was on the vulnerable list and faced threats from a specific
individual in the cellhouse.
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
To state an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim, a prisoner must allege that
(1) “he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” and
(2) defendants “acted with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d
904, 909 (7th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff also must prove that prison officials were aware of a
specific, impending, and substantial threat to his safety, often by showing “that he
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”).
complained to prison officials about a specific threat to his safety.” Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d
90, 92 (7th Cir. 1996).
At this stage, Price states a viable failure to protect claim against John Doe #1, John
Doe #2, Lt. Jack, and Lt. Robinson. Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against all Defendants.
The Court also ADDS Daniel Monti, in his official capacity only as the warden of
Centralia, to respond to discovery aimed at identifying the John Does.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against John Doe #1, John Doe
#2, Lt. Jack, and Lt. Robinson. Daniel Monti is ADDED, in his official capacity only, to
identify the John Does.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Lt. Jack, Lt. Robinson, and Daniel
Monti (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 the defendants’ place of employment as identified by Price. 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 Price, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk 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. As Daniel Monti is added to the case only to respond
to John Doe discovery, he need not file a responsive pleading. Once Monti enters his
appearance, the Court will enter a John Doe discovery order providing additional
information on the John Doe discovery process.
If judgment is rendered against Price, 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, Price 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 seven 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: 5/12/2023
/s/ Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
U.S. 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, 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.