West v. Ebers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KENTES WEST, #K82893, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-00224-SMY

)

S. EBERS, )

ROBERT W. RHOADES, )

ZACKARY CONNER, )

RYAN RAMSEY, )

KEVIN TILLEY, )

SMITH, )

LAMBERT, )

J. HUFFMAN, )

HANKS, )

JOSHUA SHOENBECK, )

MORGAN, and )

ANTHONY WILLS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the First Amended Complaint

(Doc. 19) filed by Plaintiff Kentes West. Plaintiff is an inmate in the Illinois Department of

Corrections and is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. He brings this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional deprivations stemming from staff retaliation at Menard.

The First Amended Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which

requires this Court to dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim

for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. Id.

First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19, pp. 15-

71): Menard officials subjected Plaintiff to the unauthorized use of force and denied him

medication in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against Lieutenant Ebers. Id. at 15. To obtain his

prescription medication, Plaintiff was required to wear handcuffs during med line. The only

exemption from this requirement was for Plaintiff’s “crush and float” medication for nerve pain.

Before receiving all other medications, Menard officials would cuff Plaintiff so tightly that he

suffered pain and numbness in his wrists, hands, and arms for hours after med line ended. Id.

Plaintiff complained to Lieutenant Ebers in July 2022. He told the officer that he regularly

declined medications that required cuffs because it was so painful. Lieutenant Ebers said that

Plaintiff should be happy there was nothing else to complain about, given that he named the

lieutenant in a lawsuit. Plaintiff did not recognize the officer by appearance or name, but the

officer clearly knew him. Id. at 16. Plaintiff soon realized that Lieutenant Ebers was substituted

for an unknown defendant in a case he filed against Menard’s Orange Crush Tactical Team.

Lieutenant Ebers made a snide remark about Plaintiff’s unsuccessful litigation of that case, which

actually settled before summary judgment. Id.

Hoping to avoid the issues posed by Lieutenant Ebers, Plaintiff requested a change of

medication times to a shift that Lieutenant Ebers and Nurse Morgan did not work. Reva Engelage

denied his request, claiming it would interfere with Plaintiff’s blood pressure medication. Id.

From July 12-14, 2022, Lieutenant Ebers instructed prison guards to cuff Plaintiff for all

medication, including his “crush and float” medication. Id. at 17. Plaintiff ended up declining or

receiving no medication during this time period. Afterward, Plaintiff only received his medication

on days that Lieutenant Ebers was not working, and Sergeant Rhoades eventually made sure

Plaintiff was denied medication on all other days as well. Plaintiff was ultimately denied

medication even when he offered to cuff up for it. Id.

Plaintiff documented the following denials of medication in September and October 2022:

Lieutenant Ebers on September 8 and 13; Lieutenant Conners on September 14; Officer Tilley on

September 20; Officer Hatley on September 21; Officer Mitchell on September 22; Officer Taylor

on September 23; Officer Ramsey on October 3; Officer Smith on October 4; Officer Lambert on

October 5; Officer Ramsey on October 7;1 and Officers Ramsey and Hatley on October 8. Id. at

18-20. Nurse Morgan became so accustomed to Plaintiff not getting medication that she stopped

packing it. Id. at 21.

Lieutenant Ebers also made harassing comments to Plaintiff on September 11, 2022,

prompting him to request a PREA complaint form. Id. at 19. His request was denied, and Officers

Huffman and Hanks instead wrote Plaintiff a false disciplinary ticket. Id. at 19-20.

Sergeant Rhoades issued Plaintiff four false disciplinary reports on September 2,

September 4, September 14, and October 30, 2022. Id. at 18. The tickets were carbon copies of

one another and cited violations of rules that did not exist in DR 504. Id. Plaintiff was denied a

fair and impartial hearing and found guilty of each one.2 Id. at 18-19, 24-25. Lieutenant

Shoenbeck, Sergeant Jones, and Officer Walker presided over the disciplinary hearings and failed

to properly document the proceedings, failed to rely on truthful information, refused to consider

the evidence that Plaintiff presented, and failed to apply the proper legal standard before finding

the plaintiff guilty. Id. at 24-27. Plaintiff seeks money damages from the defendants.3 Id. at 22,

27.

1 Major Rowland intervened and provided medication on this date.

2 Plaintiff does not indicate what punishment he received for each ticket, but the Disciplinary Hearing Summaries

attached to the First Amended Complaint list commissary restrictions, demotion to C-grade, and/or segregation for 7

days (Ticket #1), 14 days (Ticket #2), 14 days (Ticket #3), 14 days (Ticket #4), and 28 days (Ticket #5). Id. at 39, 41,

43, 45, and 49.

3 As an exhibit to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff included a handwritten grievance requesting expungement

of all disciplinary tickets, removal of the adjustment committee members, and suspension without pay or termination

of all defendants from their employment. Id. at 27. Plaintiff omitted all of these requests from his “Request for Relief”

in the First Amended Complaint. Id. at 22.

Preliminary Dismissals

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires a plaintiff to name all parties in the case

caption. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff mentions

several individuals in the statement of his claim who are not identified as defendants, including:

Reva Engelage, Major Rowland, Officer Hatley, Officer Mitchell, Officer Taylor, Sergeant Jones,

and Officer Walker, among others. Because these individuals are not named as defendants, they

are not considered parties; all claims against them are considered DISMISSED without

prejudice.

Plaintiff also identifies Warden Wills as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint but

makes no allegations against him. If a plaintiff fails to include the name of a defendant in his

statement of claim or make any allegations against him, that defendant cannot be said to have

notice of which claims, if any, are directed against the party. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Merely

invoking the name of a potential defendant is not enough to state a claim. Collins v. Kibort, 143

F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Warden Wills will be DISMISSED without

prejudice.

Discussion

The Court designates the following claims in the pro se First Amended Complaint:

Count 1: First Amendment claim against Defendants for denying Plaintiff access to

his medications from July through October 2022, in retaliation for filing a

lawsuit against Lieutenant Ebers.

Count 2: First Amendment claim against Defendants for issuing Plaintiff five

disciplinary tickets in September and October 2022, in retaliation for filing

grievances or complaints against staff at Menard.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for using excessive force

against Plaintiff by cuffing him too tightly for med line in 2022.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for exhibiting deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by denying him access to

his medications in 2022.

Count 5: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for denying Plaintiff a

protected liberty interest without due process of law by issuing him five

false disciplinary tickets that resulted in his punishment with segregation,

commissary restrictions, and/or demotion to C-grade.

Count 6: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants for

mishandling Plaintiff’s grievances in 2022.

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

is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.4

Counts 1 and 2

Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for exercising their First Amendment

rights by filing grievances or complaining about the conditions of their confinement. Manuel v.

Nalley, 966 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2020). To state a colorable claim for retaliation, a plaintiff

must sufficiently allege that: (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he

suffered a deprivation likely to deter future First Amendment activity; and (3) his protected activity

was “at least a motivating factor” in the defendant’s decision to take retaliatory action against him.

Douglas v. Reeves, 964 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546

(7th Cir. 2009)).

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state claims of retaliation in Count 1 against the

following defendants, who allegedly denied him medication because he filed a lawsuit against

Lieutenant Ebers: Defendants Ebers, Rhoades, Conner, Ramsey, Tilley, Smith, Lambert, and

Morgan. Because Plaintiff does not identify any other defendants in connection with this claim,

Count 1 will be dismissed without prejudice against all other defendants.

4 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”).

Plaintiff states viable claims of retaliation in Count 2 against the following defendants, who

allegedly issued him fabricated disciplinary tickets in retaliation for filing grievances and

complaints about the denial of medication and other harassment by staff: Defendants Huffman,

Hanks, and Rhoades. Because no other defendant is named in connection with the issuance of

false disciplinary tickets, Count 2 will be dismissed without prejudice against all other defendants.

Count 3

To state an excessive force claim, an inmate must set forth facts suggesting that force was

“carried out ‘maliciously and sadistically’ rather than as part of ‘a good-faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline’” Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 40 (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992)).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was cuffed in a manner that caused pain and injury for no penological

reason. However, he fails to identify a single defendant who was responsible for cuffing him.

Accordingly, Count 3 will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against any

defendants. See Stockton v. Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 619 (7th Cir. 2022) (Section 1983

liability hinges on personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation).

Count 4

To state an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of medical care, a plaintiff must

first describe a serious medical need, such as one that has been diagnosed by a physician as

requiring treatment or one where the need for treatment would be obvious to a lay person. Greeno

v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Second, the plaintiff must describe conduct on the

part of each defendant that amounts to deliberate indifference, which occurs when a defendant

“know[s] of and disregard[s] an excessive risk to inmate health.” Id.

Plaintiff makes passing reference to medication used to control his blood pressure and

nerve pain, but this is not enough to establish a serious medical need. Moreover, he does not

identify which defendants denied him medication on each date. Therefore, Count 4 will be

dismissed against all defendants without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Count 5

The Fourteenth Amendment protects against deprivations of constitutionally protected

interests in “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.

113, 125 (1990). When presented with a due process claim in the prison disciplinary context, the

court considers: (1) whether there was a protected interest at stake that necessitated due process

protections; and (2) whether the disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance with procedural

due process requirements. Id. When determining whether a protected liberty interest is at stake,

courts generally consider the duration of confinement in segregation and the conditions an inmate

encountered there. For shorter terms of segregation, no inquiry into the specific conditions is even

necessary. See Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761 (7th Cir. 1997) (70 days); Lekas v. Briley,

405 F.3d 602, 612 (7th Cir. 2005) (90 days); Beamon v. Pollard, 711 F. App’x 794, 795 (7th Cir.

2018) (135 days); Hardaway v. Meyerhoff, 734 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2013) (182 days). For

longer terms in segregation, the Court considers whether the plaintiff endured an “atypical and

significant hardship.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Marion v. Columbia Corr.

Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009) (240 days).

The Court is unable to analyze the first component of this claim because Plaintiff does not

state the punishment he received for the five allegedly false disciplinary tickets in September and

October 2022. That said, the Court’s review of the Disciplinary Hearing Summaries reveals

punishment with segregation for 7 days (Ticket #1), 14 days (Ticket #2), 14 days (Ticket #3), 14

days (Ticket #4), and 28 days (Ticket #5). (Doc. 19, pp. 39, 41, 43, 45, and 49). Plaintiff’s

punishment with 7 to 28 days of segregation for each ticket, standing alone or combined, is too

short to implicate a liberty interest.

Additionally, Plaintiff does not describe the conditions he endured in segregation.

Although he was also punished with commissary restrictions and demotion to C-grade status,

according to the Disciplinary Hearing Summaries, neither supports a claim. See Thomas v. Ramos,

130 F.3d at 762, n.8 (no protected liberty interest implicated in loss of certain privileges and

demotion to C-grade).

Because Plaintiff fails to describe a constitutionally protected interest that triggered any

right to due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, Count 5 will be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Count 6

No independent claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause for the

mishandling of grievances. “[A] state’s inmate grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty

interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.

1996). The Constitution requires no procedure at all, so the failure of state prison officials to

follow their own procedures does not violate the Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644,

648 (7th Cir. 1992). Count 6 will therefore be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and shall proceed, as follows:

• COUNT 1 will proceed against Defendants EBERS, RHOADES, CONNER,

RAMSEY, TILLEY, SMITH, LAMBERT, and MORGAN, in their individual

capacities.

• COUNT 2 will proceed against Defendants HUFFMAN, HANKS, and

RHOADES, in their individual capacities.

• COUNTS 1 and 2 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted against any other defendants not named in

connection with the claims in the two preceding paragraphs.

• COUNTS 3, 4, and 5 are DISMISSED without prejudice and COUNT 6 is

DISMISSED with prejudice, all for failure to state a claim against any defendants.

• Defendants SHOENBECK and WILLS are DISMISSED without prejudice

because the First Amended Complaint states no claim against either defendant.

For Counts 1 and 2, the Clerk shall prepare for Defendants EBERS, RHOADES,

CONNER, RAMSEY, TILLEY, SMITH, LAMBERT, MORGAN, HUFFMAN, and

HANKS: (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 (Doc. 19), and this Memorandum and Order to each

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 that 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. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to

Administrative Order No. 244 and Local Rule 8.2, 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, even though he was granted in forma pauperis status. 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 parties 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 14 days

after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order

pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and TERMINATE

Defendants ANTHONY WILLS and JOSHUA SHOENBECK as parties in CM/ECF.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2023 s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

Once identified, the Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your

lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your First Amended Complaint. After service has been

achieved, Defendants will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your First Amended

Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date they are served with this lawsuit 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, 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.