Regan v. Wills

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DESHAWN REGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-3886-NJR

ANTHONY WILLS, JOSHUA

SCHOENBECK, C/O LAUER,

LIEUTENANT MCCARTHY, NURSE

MORGAN, ANGELA CRAIN, NURSE

REBA, C/O JANE AND JOHN DOES,

C/O MORRIS, and

WEXFORD HEALTHCARE,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff DeShawn Regan, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action

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

incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). In the Complaint, Regan alleges

the defendants deprived him of his due process rights in a disciplinary hearing, subjected

him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, denied him proper medical and

mental health care, and retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and lawsuits. He asserts

claims pursuant to the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

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

In his Complaint, Regan makes the following allegations: On December 9, 2021,

Regan and several inmates were pulled from the yard and escorted to the healthcare unit

(Doc. 1, p. 6). Once arriving at the healthcare unit, Regan was confronted by Lieutenant

Joshua Schoenbeck who stated that Regan would be placed in segregation. Schoenbeck

allegedly threatened Regan, stating “you’ll get to see what filing all that paperwork gets

you.” (Id.). Schoenbeck and the other officers then took pictures of Regan’s hands and

face, allegedly to determine if he was involved in an earlier altercation on the yard (Id. at

pp. 6-7).

Regan was then escorted to North 2 restricted housing on temporary confinement

(Id. at p. 7). He was placed in Cell #403. Regan alleges the cell was inhumane and in

deplorable condition. The walls were covered in dirt, grime, mildew, and mold. The

ventilation hole was coated in dust and the cell door was covered in plexiglass,

preventing airflow into the cell (Id.). Regan complained about the conditions of his cell to

numerous officers, counselors, lieutenants, and majors (Id.). He also wrote a letter to

Warden Anthony Wills through the institutional mail (Id.).

On December 9, 2021, Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Lauer interviewed Regan

about the altercation on the yard (Id.). During the interview, Lauer threatened Regan and

instructed him to drop his lawsuit against the warden. If he agreed to drop his lawsuit,

Lauer stated that he could make the current charges go away (Id.). If he refused, Lauer

threatened to inform gang members at the prison that Regan was a snitch (Id.).

On December 12, 2021, Regan asked C/O Morris about accessing the telephones.

C/O Morris threatened Regan, noting that other staff told him about Regan and how he

filed lawsuits against staff (Id. at p. 8). He directed Regan to drop his lawsuits, threatening

that he might not feed Regan if he did not drop the suits (Id.). C/O Morris then turned

Regan’s sink and toilet off, denying him access to water for 24 hours (Id.). Later that day,

Morris handed Regan a “special” tray that contained only a small portion of potatoes. All

of the other inmates around Regan received a chicken patty, bread, potatoes, vegetable,

and dessert (Id.).

On December 14, 2021, C/O Lauer and Lieutenant McCarthy pulled Regan out of

his cell for an interview (Id. at p. 14). They threatened him for using the grievance system

and for filing lawsuits (Id.). They told him that all of the charges would go away if he

dropped his lawsuits (Id.). They also threatened to make his stay “a living hell and as

miserable as possible” until he agreed to drop his pending cases (Id.). McCarthy informed

Regan that his cell was being torn apart during the interview (Id.). Regan sought help

through the prison grievance process, but his grievances were ignored (Id at p. 14).

On an unstated date, Regan went before the adjustment committee for charges

stemming from the yard incident on December 9, 2021 (Id. at p. 8). Lieutenant Schoenbeck

served as chairperson of the committee. Regan submitted a written statement and a

request for an extension of time (Id. at pp. 8-9). He also verbally requested an alternative

chairperson, arguing that Schoenbeck previously threatened him and had conflicts

preventing him from acting as chairperson (Id. at p. 9). Schoenbeck refused the request

and found Regan guilty. He punished Regan with three months in segregation (Id.).

During Regan’s three months in segregation, he alleges that he was subjected to

cruel and unusual conditions (Id. at p. 9). It was extremely cold outside, but Regan lacked

adequate clothing and bedding to combat the cold temperatures in the cellhouse (Id. at

pp. 9, 13). He was not able to clean his clothes because he lacked access to a laundry bag

and was forced to wear dirty clothing (Id.). He never received adequate cleaning supplies

to clean his cell (Id. at p. 10). The showers were not cleaned between usage by other

inmates (Id.). Because it was during the Covid-19 pandemic, Regan alleges that inmates

who refused Covid-19 shots were allowed to use the same showers as Regan (Id.). Regan

alleges he developed symptoms, including shortness of breath, after using the showers

(Id. at p. 11). He informed “several officers and staff” about the conditions in segregation

(Id. at p. 10).

Regan also suffered from serious medical conditions while in segregation and

attempted to obtain medical care (Id. at p. 11). On January 7, 2022, he tried to obtain care

from Nurse Morgan, but his request was denied (Id.). He also wrote request slips to

Counselor Quick about his need for medical care and the harassment from other officers

(Id.). Quick responded that medical staff were notified of his request for care, but Regan

still was not evaluated by staff (Id.). At some point during his stint in segregation, he

developed symptoms of Covid-19 (Id. at p. 13). Although he asked for medical care, all

requests for care were denied or ignored (Id.). Regan alleges that Angela Crain, who

allegedly oversaw the healthcare unit, was responsible for the medical staff’s deliberate

indifference to his need for testing and care for his condition (Id.). Regan eventually tested

positive for Covid-19. During his stay in segregation, Regan also sought care from mental

health staff for what he described as a mental health crisis (Id. at p. 12). He informed them

of his need for emergency medical attention due to the stress of his conditions and staff

harassment (Id.).

On January 15, 2022, Regan was taken out of his cell for a Covid-19 test (Id. at

p. 11). While he was out of the cellhouse, multiple unknown officers entered his cell and

destroyed his paperwork (Id.). An inmate in a nearby cell allegedly overheard the guards

say that “this the legal man cell right here, he’s the one always dropping grievances.” (Id.

at pp. 11-12). Officers entered his cell four more times during a 48-hour period (Id. at

p. 12). Regan submitted a grievance about the searches of his cell. The intelligence officers

acknowledged that Regan’s cell had been entered multiple times, but the officers who

were part of the search team were not identified (Id.). The grievance response also

indicated that an inmate’s cell could be searched and subject to a shakedown at any time

(Id.). Although Regan was informed that he would receive a shakedown report, he never

received one (Id.).

Preliminary Dismissals

Regan identifies a number of generic John/Jane Does but fails to provide any

identifying information or the number of officers he attempts to sue. For instance, Regan

alleges that he informed “mental health staff” of his need for emergency medical care,

but he fails to provide any allegations suggesting the number of mental health staff that

he spoke to or when he spoke to these individuals (Doc. 1, p. 12). Similarly, he alleges

that “multiple officers” tore up his cell in retaliation for filing legal claims, but he fails to

identify the potential number of officers involved in the search of his cell. He also alleges

that he spoke to numerous officers and counselors about the conditions of his cell without

providing any identifying information or a time period in which he spoke to these

officials. Although Regan may certainly allege claims against identified John/Jane Does

(i.e., John Doe #1, John Doe #2), he includes generic groups of officials that cannot survive

threshold review. Regan may identify a defendant by a John Doe designation, but he

must identify them by number and description.

Regan also fails to state a claim regarding his medical and mental health care. In

addition to alleging that various unknown medical staff ignored his requests for care, he

alleges that on January 7, 2022, Nurse Morgan denied him medical attention (Doc. 1,

p. 11). But he only states in conclusory fashion that she denied him needed medical

attention. He fails to include any allegations to suggest that she was aware of his need for

medical care or that he specifically asked for care from Nurse Morgan. See Qian v. Kautz,

168 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that the relevant inquiry is whether defendants

“actually knew about [Plaintiff’s] condition, not whether a reasonable official should

have known”).

It is also not clear whether Regan had a serious medical condition at the time. He

alleges that at some point he contracted Covid-19, but as to his claim against Nurse

Morgan, he merely alleges that he was suffering from medical issues (Id.). Further, on

January 15, 2022, he received a Covid-19 test, suggesting that officials were attentive to

his medical needs. He also alleges that Angela Crain was responsible for medical staff’s

deliberate indifference because she oversaw care in the medical unit. But Crain cannot be

liable for the actions of her subordinates because respondeat superior, or supervisor,

liability does not apply to Section 1983 actions. Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d

782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014). Similarly, Regan alleges that Wexford Healthcare is liable as the

supervisors of Crain and the nurses. But Wexford also cannot be liable simply as

supervisors. Regan can only proceed on a claim against Wexford if its policies and

practices led to the deliberate indifference he experienced. See Woodward v. Corr. Med.

Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004) (corporation can be held liable for

deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused the violation). He fails to

allege that he was denied care due to a policy or practice of Wexford. Finally, Regan

identifies a Nurse Reba in the case caption but fails to include any allegations against her

in his statement of claim. Thus, all potential claims against Nurse Morgan, Nurse Reba,

Angela Crain, and Wexford Healthcare are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Discussion

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

the pro se action into the following counts:

Count 1: First Amendment retaliation claim against Schoenbeck, C/O

Lauer, and McCarthy for issuing Regan a disciplinary ticket

and ransacking his cell in retaliation for filing grievances

and lawsuits.

Count 2: First Amendment retaliation claim against C/O Morris for

denying Regan adequate water and food in retaliation for

filing grievances and lawsuits.

Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against

Schoenbeck for presiding over Regan’s disciplinary ticket.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim

against Anthony Wills for housing Regan in unsanitary

conditions in segregation.

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.1

Count 1

Regan adequately states a claim in Count 1 for retaliation. Regan alleges that he

was issued a disciplinary ticket and that Lieutenant Schoenbeck, C/O Lauer, and

Lieutenant McCarthy all said that they could make the charges go away if he stopped

filing lawsuits and grievances. Their statements suggest they issued the disciplinary

ticket in retaliation for Regan’s legal filings. They threatened him and also directed that

his cell be torn up by guards. That is enough at this stage to state a retaliation claim.

Count 2

Regan also states a retaliation claim in Count 2. He alleges that C/O Morris turned

off his water and provided him with inadequate amounts of food. Regan alleges that

1 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”).

Morris noted that Regan was the inmate filing lawsuits and threatened to deny him food

and other necessities unless he dropped his cases. Morris then turned off Regan’s water

for 24 hours and brought him a meal with smaller portions. That is enough to state a claim

at this stage.

Count 3

As to Regan’s procedural due process claim in Count 3, the Court undertakes a

two-part analysis. Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court first evaluates

whether the prisoner was deprived of a protected liberty interest, and then second,

evaluates whether the process he was afforded was constitutionally deficient. Id. (citing

Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2016)). Due process safeguards

that are associated with prison disciplinary hearings include: (1) advance written notice

of the charges; (2) the opportunity to appear before an impartial hearing body to contest

the charges; (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence as a

defense (if prison safety allows and subject to the discretion of correctional officers); and

(4) a written statement summarizing the reasons for the discipline imposed. See Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974). In addition, the decision of the adjustment

committee must be supported by “some evidence.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941

(7th Cir. 2007).

Here Regan alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of

confinement while housed in segregation on his disciplinary ticket. He faced unsanitary

conditions in his cell and unsanitary conditions and exposure to Covid-19 in the showers.

He also alleges that Schoenbeck, as adjustment committee chairman, was not an impartial

hearing officer because he had previously threatened Regan. Thus, Regan adequately

states a claim against Schoenbeck in Count 3.

Count 4

Finally, Regan states a claim in Count 4 for the conditions of confinement he

experienced in segregation. He alleges that he wrote a letter to Warden Anthony Wills

about the conditions. Although he also alleges that he spoke with numerous correctional

officers about the conditions, he fails to identify those officials by name or John Doe

designation. Thus, Count 4 shall only proceed against Warden Wills.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Joshua Schoenbeck,

C/O Lauer, and Lieutenant McCarthy. Count 2 shall proceed against C/O Morris. Count

3 shall proceed against Schoenbeck and Count 4 shall proceed against Anthony Wills. All

other claims against Nurse Morgan, Nurse Reba, Angela Crain, unknown John/Jane

Does, and Wexford Healthcare are DISMISSED without prejudice

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Joshua Schoenbeck, C/O Lauer,

Lieutenant McCarthy, C/O Morris, and Anthony Wills: (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 each defendant’s place of employment as identified by

Regan. 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 Regan, 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.

If judgment is rendered against Regan, 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, Regan 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 14 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: March 14, 2024 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.

12