Artis v. Michell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MONTEZ ARTIS, #B84281, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-00078-SMY

)

WARDEN DAVID MICHELL,1 )

OFFICER HILL, )

NURSE BRIANN,2 )

C/O JOHN DOE 1, and )

I/A OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Montez Artis, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections and currently

incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 for alleged constitutional deprivations stemming from his attack by another inmate. He

seeks monetary and injunctive relief.3 This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review

of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires dismissal of any portion that is legally

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

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 10-14): Prior to his

transfer to Pinckneyville Correctional Center on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff was housed in a permanent

1 Plaintiff identifies this individual as Warden “Michell” in the case caption and “Mitchell” throughout the Complaint.

2 Plaintiff refers to this defendant as “Briann” in the case caption and “Briann or Brianna” throughout the Complaint.

3 Plaintiff requests a permanent single-man cell. (Doc. 1, p. 15). He does not invoke Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or request interim injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary

injunction. The Court construes this request as one for permanent injunctive relief at the close of the case.

one-man cell for eighteen months at Pontiac Correctional Center. Id. at 10. His “one-man cell”

status was cancelled when he arrived at Pinckneyville, and he was assigned to a small cell with a

violent cellmate named Raymond Cheatham. Plaintiff pleaded for reinstatement of his one-man

cell status, but staff denied his request “often.” Id.

Inmate Cheatham became upset when Plaintiff refused to let him use his television on

June 22, 2023. Id. at 11. Plaintiff had a medical call pass scheduled for 11:30 a.m. and did not

want his television in use when he left for the appointment. The two inmates exchanged “words

of discontent.” Id. Cheatham then threatened to “f*ck Artis up” in the presence of C/O John Doe.

Id. Cheatham also turned to the officer and repeated this threat, saying “he was going to f*ck

Artis up.” Id. When C/O Doe let Plaintiff out of the cell, the officer asked whether everything

was going to be alright. Id. at 12. Plaintiff stated, “No, I do not feel safe.” Id. C/O Doe refused

to issue a ticket for intimidation or threats or remove Cheatham from the cell. Id.

While in Pinckneyville’s Health Care Unit (HCU) that day, Plaintiff asked to speak with

Dr. Farnum, a mental health professional. Plaintiff reported the threat and said he feared for his

safety. Dr. Farnum said there was nothing she could do and instructed Plaintiff to write Placement

Officer Hill. Id. Plaintiff returned to his cell and wrote to Officer Hill. Id.

Plaintiff also sent an emergency grievance to Warden David Mitchell. Plaintiff explained

that he feared for his safety based on the threats of bodily harm he received from Cheatham. He

also explained that C/O Doe and other staff were aware of the threats and refused to protect him.

The grievance was deemed an emergency on June 23, 2023, but there was no investigation into

the incident and no change in housing assignments. Id.

Cheatham attacked Plaintiff on June 24, 2023. Id. While beating him, Cheatham stated,

“I told you and that b*tch*ss C/O I was going to f*ck you up.” Id. at 13. Cheatham inflicted

serious injuries to Plaintiff’s face, head, jaw, lips, and ribs. Once Cheatham became fatigued,

Plaintiff held him off until he was taken to the HCU. Id.

In the HCU, Plaintiff was questioned by Md/Nurse Lori about his mental health, instead of

treated for his injuries. Plaintiff requested medical treatment, and Nurse Briann said, “I don’t see

any blood. You not bleeding.” Id. Plaintiff was then thrown in solitary confinement for two

weeks without receiving any medical examination, treatment, or pain relief. Internal Affairs never

investigated the incident or took photos of his injuries. Id. at 14.

Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary ticket, found guilty of fighting, and punished with two

weeks of segregation, C-grade, and commissary restriction. The ticket was expunged months later

after Plaintiff served the entire punishment and was moved from low aggression housing at Pontiac

to high aggression housing with violent cellmates at Pinckneyville. Id.

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

pro se action:

Count 1: C/O John Doe 1, Officer Hill, and Warden Mitchell failed to protect

Plaintiff from assault by Inmate Cheatham on or around June 24, 2023, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 2: Nurse Briann failed to provide Plaintiff with necessary medical treatment

for injuries he sustained in the attack by Inmate Cheatham on or around

June 24, 2023, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 3: C/O John Doe 1, Officer Hill, Warden Mitchell, and/or Nurse Briann

deprived Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest without due process of law

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, when they issued him a

disciplinary ticket for fighting and punished him with two weeks in

segregation, C-grade, commissary restriction, and ongoing placement in

high aggression housing.

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

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.4

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff mentions Dr. Farnum and Md/Nurse Lori in the statement of his claim, but does

not identify either as a defendant in the Complaint. Therefore, the Court will not treat these

individuals as parties, and all claims against them are dismissed without prejudice. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint “must name all the parties”).

Plaintiff names I/A Officer John Doe 2 as a defendant in the Complaint but makes no

allegations against this individual. 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). Therefore, I/A

Officer John Doe 2 will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.

Discussion

Count 1

The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to protect inmates from violence

at the hands of other inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-35 (1994). A prison official

violates the Eighth Amendment when the official subjects an inmate to conditions of confinement

posing a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety and acts with deliberate indifference

to that risk. Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations state a viable claim against C/O Doe 1, who allegedly witnessed

Cheatham threaten physical harm and took no steps to protect Plaintiff just before he was attacked

by the same inmate. Therefore, Count 1 will receive further review against C/O Doe 1.

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”).

Count 1 will be dismissed without prejudice against Officer Hill and Warden Mitchell

however. The allegations do not indicate whether Hill received Plaintiff’s written request for new

housing before he was attacked or knew that an inmate attack was imminent. Warden Mitchell

granted the emergency grievance one day before the attack, and there is no indication that the

warden knew that no action was taken on the grievance prior to the attack.

Count 2

An Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of medical care arises when a prison official

responds with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical need. Arnett v. Webster, 658

F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011). The allegations suggest that Nurse Briann deliberately disregarded

Plaintiff’s requests for treatment of injuries to his head, jaw, face, and ribs following his assault

and caused him to suffer prolonged pain. Therefore, Count 2 will proceed against Nurse Briann.

Count 3

A Fourteenth Amendment due process claim arises in the disciplinary hearing context

when: (1) a protected interest necessitated due process protections in the first place; and (2) the

disciplinary hearing was conducted in a manner that violated due process. Zinermon v. Burch, 494

U.S. 113, 125 (1990). When deciding whether a protected liberty interest was at stake, courts

consider the duration of confinement in segregation and the conditions an inmate faced there.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). For shorter periods of confinement, courts typically

find no protected liberty interest and end the inquiry there. For longer terms of confinement, the

Court considers any “atypical and significant hardship” the plaintiff faced in segregation. See id.

And, when a ticket is ultimately expunged, due process is satisfied by an administrative appeal

that corrects the procedural error before punishment begins. Morisette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119,

1121-22 (7th Cir. 1995); Williams v. Brown, 849 F. App’x 154, 157 (7th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff’s time spent in segregation was short, and no defendants are identified in

connection with this claim in the Complaint or exhibits. Count 3 shall therefore be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief against a defendant.

Identification of Unknown Defendants

Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with Count 1 against C/O John Doe 1 and Count 2

against Nurse Briann/Brianna, but these defendants must be identified by first and last names

before service of the Complaint can be made on them. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to engage

in limited discovery to ascertain their identities. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577

F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). Pinckneyville Correctional Center’s Warden will be added in an

official capacity for purposes of identifying the defendants. Once identified, Plaintiff shall file a

motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of the generic designations in the case

caption and throughout the Complaint.

Disposition

The Complaint survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and proceeds, as follows:

• COUNT 1 will receive further review against C/O JOHN DOE 1, in his individual

capacity. This claim is DISMISSED without prejudice against ALL OTHER

DEFENDANTS.

• COUNT 2 will receive further review against NURSE BRIANN, in his or her

individual capacity. This claim is DISMISSED without prejudice against ALL

OTHER DEFENDANTS.

• COUNT 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against

any defendants.

• The WARDEN of PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER is

ADDED, in an official capacity, for purposes of identifying the defendants.

For Counts 1 and 2, the Clerk shall prepare for Defendants C/O JOHN DOE 1 and

NURSE BRIANN, once identified, and WARDEN of PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, in an 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 (Doc. 1), 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 C/O John Doe 1 and Nurse Briann are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate

responsive pleading to the 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 Doe 1 and Briann

need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order. The Warden of

Pinckneyville Correctional Center need only appear and not answer.

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 ADD the WARDEN of PINCKNEYVILLE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER, in an official capacity; TERMINATE Defendants DAVID

MICHELL/MITCHELL, OFFICER HILL, and I/A OFFICER JOHN DOE 2 as parties in

CM/ECF; and ENTER this Court’s standard HIPAA-Qualified Protective Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2024 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 Complaint. After service has been achieved,

Defendants will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your 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.