# Brown v. Rayford

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · April 1, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157557

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** April 1, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157557

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DELVON BROWN, )
Y49809, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-572-DWD
)
C/O RAYFORD, )
LT. DALLAS, )
C/O HUGHES, )
C/O GRACIA, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Delvon Brown, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) currently detained at Menard Correctional Center (Menard) brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that on September 28, 2023, three guards beat him during
a tactical shakedown, and a fourth guard refused to secure medical care for his injuries.
He alleges that he still has not received needed dental care, staff has begun to threaten
him in association with his attempts to grieve these issues, and he has been unable to get
any grievance responses about these issues. He seeks compensation and injunctive relief
in the form of needed dental care.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review
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)-(b).
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). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint
On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff was in the chapel with other inmates during a

tactical shakedown of the east house. Defendant Rayford approached him and directed
him to stand up and to follow Rayford to a wall. (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff was handcuffed
behind his back at the time, and he complied. Defendants Dallas and Hughes approached
and forcefully grabbed Plaintiff from behind. He alleges that Rayford then grabbed his
hair and began to slam his face and head into the wall. Plaintiff asked Rayford to stop,

but Rayford continued to pester him. When Plaintiff moved his face away from Rayford’s
prodding, Rayford slammed his face into the wall a second time and demanded better
compliance with commands. Plaintiff told Rayford he was upset over nothing, which
provoked Rayford to slam his head into the wall a third time. Plaintiff alleges that all the
while Dallas and Hughes stood there holding him and doing nothing.

After the beating, Dallas and Hughes escorted Plaintiff out of the chapel towards
segregation. On the walk Plaintiff spit out two of his teeth and asked to retrieve them,
but the defendants twisted his handcuffs tighter and commanded him onward. Plaintiff
was placed in North 2 without any of his sheets, clothes, or hygiene materials. He was
without his property for four days.

Plaintiff asked Defendant Gracia for medical treatment for severe mouth pain and
dizziness, but Gracia did not oblige. Plaintiff was also unsuccessful in getting the
attention of passing nurses. Plaintiff claims he got an infection in his mouth and wrote
sick call slips about it but was never given antibiotics.
On October 21, 2023, Plaintiff lost consciousness for five to seven minutes. Nurse
Angi was present, but continued passing out medications and did not help. After

Plaintiff spit up blood, C/O Adkins took him to the healthcare unit. A nurse observed
an infection and two missing teeth. She confirmed by prior dental x-rays that Plaintiff’s
teeth were not missing before he came to Menard. Despite this discovery, Plaintiff was
taken back to his housing unit and still has shards of tooth in his mouth.
Plaintiff alleges that since the incident, C.O. Cootlet came to his cell to threaten

and intimidate him about the grievances he had begun to file about the beating. He adds
that Defendant Gracia has also made comments and has teased him about his grievance
activity. (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that as of February of 2024, he had yet to receive a
response to his grievances, or correspondence seeking an update on the grievances. He
claims that he has also been denied law library access in an effort to impede him from

filing this lawsuit. He alleges that internal affairs came to talk to him about the assault
and told him it would be removed from his ticket history. He alleges this does not make
any sense because he never broke any rules in the first place.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and dental care. (Doc. 1 at 13).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following
claims:
Claim 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force or failure to
intervene/protect claim against Defendants Rayford,
Dallas, and Hughes;

Claim 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Gracia for denying Plaintiff medical attention
for his broken teeth or dizziness.

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 claim that is mentioned
in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. See Bell Atl. 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”).
Analysis
An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim requires an inquiry into “whether
force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or [whether it
was] applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
1, 7 (1992). The “core judicial inquiry” for an excessive force claim not the severity of the
injury, but whether the force used was ‘malicious and sadistic.’ Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S.
34, 37 (2010). To establish a failure to protect claim under the Eighth Amendment, a
plaintiff must allege “(1) that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm and (2) that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
health or safety.” Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010). Under the Eighth
Amendment, correctional officials have a constitutional duty to protect inmates from
violence. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994). A failure to intervene claim requires

evidence of the following: (i) the defendant knew of the unconstitutional conduct; (ii) the
defendant had a realistic opportunity to prevent the harm; (iii) the defendant failed to
take reasonable steps to prevent the harm; and (iv) the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.
Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Rayford, Dallas, and Hughes are sufficient to
proceed either for excessive force, or failure to intervene or protect him.

To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, an inmate
must show that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the
defendant was deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm from that condition.
Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475-76 (7th Cir. 2017). At this juncture, Plaintiff has alleged
that two of his teeth fell out, but there were still shards in his mouth. He claims he was

dizzy, and that he developed an infection. Despite this information, Defendant Gracia
allegedly denied him access to dental or medical care. These allegations are sufficient at
this preliminary juncture to proceed on Claim 2 against Defendant Gracia.
The Court notes that Plaintiff mentions a number of other things in passing in his
complaint, such as seeking care from passing nurses, and retaliation or threats from other

prison staff. However, Plaintiff has not named any of the people associated with these
issues as defendants in the case caption, so there is no sufficient claim presented against
them.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel
Plaintiff has moved for recruited counsel (Doc. 2) on the premise that he is
incarcerated and has very few resources. Plaintiff does not explain any efforts to secure

his own counsel, and he does not provide any proof that he has tried to get his own
counsel. There is no right to the appointment of counsel in civil matters. Romanelli v.
Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). When presented with a request to appoint
counsel, the Court must consider: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable
attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given

the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself [.]”
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Without any proof of his own efforts to
get counsel, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 2) will be denied. Additionally, the Court notes that
he adequately presented his claims to proceed beyond the first review, and the next steps
will be clearly guided by future orders from the Court, so the case is not too complex for

Plaintiff to handle at this juncture.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claim 1 of the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives
against Defendants Rayford, Dallas, and Hughes, and Claim 2 survives against
Defendant Gracia.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendants Rayford, Dallas,
Hughes, and Gracia: (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 (Doc. 1), 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 Defendant, and the Court will require 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. Address information shall not be
maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant

to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this
Merits Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party of any address changes; 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 of 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 failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case
because it may involve the exchange of medical records.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2024 /s David W. Dugan
________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States 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 the complaint. It will
likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers,
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of 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 his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles
that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but
it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening
only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some
relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged
actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is
the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157557. Public record. Not legal advice.