Newell v. Chester Mental Health Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANTWON R. NEWELL, JR., No. 918575, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-02911-SMY

)

CHESTER MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, )

TRAVIS GORDON, and )

COFEE BAHR,1 )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Antwon R. Newell, Jr., is confined in the Chester Mental Health Center

(“CMHC”).2 He filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of

his constitutional rights and claims that CMHC staff placed him in restraints and struck him several

times. (Doc. 1).

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be

dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): CMHC staff held back

Plaintiff’s snack on the night of June 29, 2023 and falsely documented that Plaintiff refused the

1 Plaintiff lists Cofee Bahr as a Defendant (Doc. 1, p. 2), but this individual was inadvertently omitted from the Court’s

docket sheet. The Clerk will be directed to correct this error.

2 Plaintiff’s Complaint was mailed from the CHMC, however, he lists his mailing address as 20301 Fairfield Ave.,

Olympia Fields, IL 60461 (Doc. 1, p. 7).

snack (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff had verbal altercations with those staff members days before the

snack incident and after. This culminated in Plaintiff being grabbed and put in restraints, on or

about June 30, 2023. While Plaintiff was restrained, a staff member placed their knee on Plaintiff’s

neck and face. At some point, the restraints were tightened and Plaintiff was punched below the

belt. Plaintiff was punched again at least four times while he was still in restraints.

The staff member involved later resigned from the facility. Plaintiff states a hand was “still

broken and fractured” (Doc. 1, p. 6). It is not clear whether the fractured hand belonged to Plaintiff

or his assailant.3

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

pro se action:

Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against Chester

Mental Health Center, Travis Gordon, and Cofee Bahr.

Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs

claim against Chester Mental Health Center, Travis Gordon, and

Cofee Bahr for failing to provide Plaintiff adequate medical care for

injuries resulting from their excessive use of force.

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.4

Discussion

Count 1

It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s confinement at CMHC resulted from a civil commitment

or a criminal matter. Either way, the beating of a restrained prisoner violates constitutional norms.

3 Plaintiff does not make a request for relief based on this incident (Doc. 1, p. 7).

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 that is plausible on its face.”).

A civil rights claim by a person who is in custody but has not been convicted of a crime is

governed by the Fourteenth Amendment. “[T]he Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee

from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S.

389, 397 (2015) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989)). For an excessive

force claim brought by a detainee, the relevant question is whether the force used was objectively

reasonable; the plaintiff is not required to prove that the defendant acted with the subjective intent

to punish or inflict harm. Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 395-400. See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

561 (1979) (pretrial detainee may demonstrate constitutional violation where a defendant’s actions

are not “rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose” or where the actions

“appear excessive in relation to that purpose”).5

While Plaintiff does not state which of the defendants held a knee against his neck and face

and punched him, construing the Complaint liberally, the Court concludes that Travis Gordon and

Cofee Bahr are the alleged perpetrators. Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with the excessive

force claim in Count 1 against Travis Gordon and Cofee Bahr. However, Plaintiff cannot maintain

his claims against Chester Mental Health Center because it is a state government agency, and

“neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will

v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). See also Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56

F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995) (state Department of Corrections is immune from suit by virtue of

Eleventh Amendment). Therefore, CMHC will be dismissed from the action without prejudice.

5 The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment governs claims brought by convicted

prisoners. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). Because Plaintiff is in CMHC, the Court will assume

he is a detainee and will apply the Fourteenth Amendment standard.

Count 2

It unclear whether Plaintiff claims he sustained injuries as a result of being punched and

kneed while in restraints. He mentions a fractured hand but does not identify who suffered the

fracture. A pretrial detainee who brings a claim for inadequate medical care need only establish

that the Defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. See Miranda v. County of Lake, 900

F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018). At this early stage, Count 2 may also proceed against Travis Gordon

and Cofee Bahr for any failure to obtain medical treatment for Plaintiff. The CHMC will be

dismissed from this claim.

Pending Motion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS

MOOT. Plaintiff paid the full filing fee of $402.00 for this action.

Disposition

The Complaint states colorable claims in Counts 1 and 2 against Travis Gordon and Cofee

Bahr. The Chester Mental Health Center is DISMISSED from the action without prejudice. The

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD Cofee Bahr as a Defendant in CM/ECF.

The Clerk shall prepare for Travis Gordon and Cofee Bahr: (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 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 the

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

Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 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. 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 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).

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER

the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

Finally, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the alternative

address listed on the Complaint, 20301 Fairfield, Ave., Olympia Fields, IL 60461 (Doc. 1, p. 7),

as well as to his address of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2024

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

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

of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, 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.