Townsend v. Merriman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOESEPH TOWNSEND, #Y40145, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:24-cv-02319-RJD

)

SGT. MERRIMAN, )

SGT. BENARD, and )

DARREN GALLOWAY, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Joeseph Townsend filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for alleged constitutional violations stemming from the denial of yard access for six months at

Shawnee Correctional Center.1 (Doc. 15). He seeks monetary relief. Id. The First Amended

Complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,2 which requires the Court to screen

prisoner complaints and filter out portions that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a

claim for relief, or request money damages from an immune defendant. Id. At this stage, the

allegations are construed liberally in favor of the pro se plaintiff. Rodriguez v. Plymouth

Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff makes the following allegations (Doc. 15, pp. 1-21): Defendants denied Plaintiff

access to the prison yard while he was housed in Shawnee Correctional Center’s Restrictive

1 This case was severed from Townsend v. Vaughn, et al., No. 24-cv-01758-DWD (S.D. Ill.).

2 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the First Amended Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction

of a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of Corrections to the exercise of Magistrate

Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between this Court and the Illinois Department

of Corrections.

Housing Unit (RHU) between December 3, 2023 and June 8, 2024. Id. at 8. During this 186-day

time period, Sergeants Merriman and Benard denied Plaintiff’s requests for yard access every day,

except May 2, 2024, May 10, 2024, May 22, 2024, and May 31, 2024. Defendants knew that

Plaintiff’s cell was too small for the exercises he required. Id.

Plaintiff suffered from obvious joint problems. He was treated for severe and chronic joint

pain in Shawnee’s health care unit (HCU) starting in 2022. Dr. David, Nurse Casey, and Nurse

Vicky diagnosed him with arthritis and Osgood-Schlatter Disease.3 Plaintiff was instructed to

refrain from all strenuous activity, and he was ordered to walk at a moderate pace on stairs or in

laps around the yard for exercise. Dr. David also issued Plaintiff medical permits for eight ace

bandages, including two for each of his wrists, elbows, ankles, and knees. Plaintiff wore these

bandages daily until February 7, 2024. Id. Staff members and inmates frequently asked him to

explain why he wore bandages around his joints, so defendants were aware of his condition. Id.

Plaintiff also informed both sergeants about his medical condition and the recommendation

for exercise. At the beginning of each shift, Plaintiff asked Sergeant Merriman to attend yard, but

the sergeant denied his requests. Sergeant Benard eventually replaced Sergeant Merriman as the

5-day officer in the RHU, and this sergeant also denied Plaintiff’s access to the yard every day,

except for the four days noted in May 2024. Both sergeants were aware of his medical condition,

restrictions, and recommendations for exercise when they denied him yard access, and the

sergeants operated under orders of Warden Darren Galloway. Id.

Plaintiff eventually learned that his name was included on the staff’s whiteboard list of

staff assaulters (“SA”) with no yard (“NY”) privileges. The board also listed the length of each

3 Osgood-Schlatter Disease is a condition in which the area where the tendon from the kneecap connects to the

shinbone becomes inflamed and swollen, causing pain just below the knee. See

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/osgoodschlatter-disease (March 3, 2025).

inmate’s placement in segregation, including their entry and exit dates. Sergeants Merriman and

Benard told Plaintiff that Warden Galloway required them to deny yard access to anyone with an

assault or fight record of any kind. Id. at 9.

However, Plaintiff is not a staff assaulter and was not punished with a denial of yard

privileges. He transferred into the RHU as punishment for his involvement in a non-staff assault

on December 3, 2023. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty and punished with

twenty-eight days in segregation, three months of C grade, and six months of contact visit

restrictions. Id. at 9-10. Warden Galloway signed off on the final disciplinary hearing summary

and report. Id. at 10.

Plaintiff grieved the denial of yard access and exercise opportunities. Counselor Zachary

Moore contacted Sergeant Benard to discuss the matter on April 6, 2024. Instead of claiming that

he restricted yard access pursuant to orders from Warden Galloway, Sergeant Benard lied and

stated that Plaintiff was offered and refused to attend yard. Plaintiff insists that he requested and

was denied yard access every day by the defendants. Id.

In all, Plaintiff was denied yard for 182 out of 186 days between December 3, 2023 and

June 8, 2024. Defendants allegedly knew he was diagnosed with a medical condition that required

regular exercise in the yard, and they knew he was unable to complete this exercise in his cell. Id.

at 9. Due to this deprivation, Plaintiff suffered significant muscle atrophy, cramps, pulled muscles,

joint inflammation, and severe right ankle pain, leaving him unable to support any weight on his

right ankle for 10 days. Id.

DISCUSSION

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

Count 1: Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement or cruel and unusual

punishment claim against Defendants Galloway, Merriman, and Benard for

depriving Plaintiff of all yard access and exercise opportunities for 182 days

between December 2023 and June 2024 and causing unnecessary pain and

suffering associated with his arthritis and Osgood-Schlatter Disease.

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

is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (action fails to state a claim for relief if it does not plead

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

This Eighth Amendment claim consists of an objective and subjective component. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834 (7th Cir. 1994). To satisfy the objective component here, Plaintiff

must describe a sufficiently serious deprivation of a basic human necessity, such as food, shelter,

clothing, exercise, or medical care. Johnson v. Prentice, 29 F.4th 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2022). To

satisfy the subjective component, Plaintiff must describe deliberate indifference to this deprivation

on the part of each defendant. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Plaintiff complains that he was denied access to exercise opportunities in the prison yard

for 182 of 186 days, and this deprivation led to serious adverse consequences to his health,

mobility, and pain levels. Exercise is recognized as “an indispensable component of preventative

medicine.” Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 528 (7th Cir. 1995). Prolonged or extreme denials

of exercise opportunities can support a constitutional claim. See Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881,

889 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[A] total restriction [on exercise] is acceptable only when that restriction is

short term.”); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996) (7-week denial of

recreation objectively serious); Jamieson-Bey v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 1046, 1048 (1989) (101-day

denial of exercise for segregated prisoner objectively serious); Delaney v. DeTella, 256 F.3d 679,

683 (7th Cir. 2001) (6-month withholding of out-of-cell exercise sufficiently serious). Plaintiff

alleges a total deprivation of exercise opportunities for 6 months, with the exception of 4 days.

This deprivation is sufficiently serious to support a claim at this stage. See French v. Owens, 777

F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1986) (Where an inmate’s movement is denied and muscles allowed to

atrophy, an individual’s health is threatened and the state’s constitutional obligation is

compromised).

Deliberate indifference occurs when a defendant has actual knowledge of impending harm

that is easily preventable and disregards the risk of harm to an inmate. Duckworth v. Franzen, 780

F.2d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 1985). According to the allegations, Defendants knew about Plaintiff’s

health conditions and orders for regular exercise that could not be completed in his cell. Defendants

also allegedly knew that he was not a staff assaulter or subject to yard restrictions when they denied

him exercise opportunities for 6 months. These allegations suggest that the defendants acted with

deliberate indifference by denying all exercise opportunities. Count 1 survives screening against

all three defendants in their individual capacities.

PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Complaint and Dismiss Jonathan Batarf (Mr. Buford)

(Doc. 15-1) is DENIED. Plaintiff did not name this individual as a defendant or set forth any

allegations against this person in the First Amended Complaint.

DISPOSITION

The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

COUNT 1 will proceed against SERGEANT MERRIMAN, SERGEANT BENARD, and

DARREN GALLOWAY, in their individual capacities.

The Clerk shall prepare for SERGEANT MERRIMAN, SERGEANT BENARD, and

DARREN GALLOWAY: (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. 15), 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 service, as 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.

Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants, or if an appearance has been entered by counsel,

upon that attorney, a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by this

Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date that a

true and correct copy of the document was mailed to each defendant or counsel. Any paper

received by a district judge or a magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk or which

fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded.

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First

Amended 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 should only respond to the

issues stated herein.

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, notwithstanding

that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for

leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give security

for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into a stipulation

that any recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who shall

pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to plaintiff. Local Rule

3.1(c)(1).

Finally, Plaintiff 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: 3/5/2025

s/ Reona J. Daly _____

REONA J. DALY

United States Magistrate Judge

Notice

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 First Amended 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, in order 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. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise

directed by the Court.