Brown-Windle v. Wilson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ADAM C. BROWN-WINDLE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 25-cv-00427-SPM

v.

Ofc. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Adam Brown-Windle, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)

who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, filed the instant lawsuit

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). Along

with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 2). On April

18, 2025, the Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 10). The Court also

directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, as is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C.

§1997e(a). (Id.). Plaintiff has responded and put forth arguments suggesting that the grievance

process was unavailable to him prior to and at the time of filing this lawsuit. (Doc. 11). Thus, the

Court finds Plaintiff’s assertions sufficient for this case to at least proceed to initial review. The

Show Cause Order is DEEEMED satisfied.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13). The

motion is GRANTED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(A). The First Amended Complaint is now

before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that March 18, 2025, other inmates housed on Plaintiff’s wing learned

about his cellmate’s criminal conviction and threatened Plaintiff and the cellmate with physical

harm, including stabbing and throwing feces and boiling grease on Plaintiff and his cellmate. (Doc.

13-1, p. 3). Plaintiff and his cellmate barricaded the cell with blankets to prevent forcible entry.

Plaintiff told an unnamed officer about the threats and was told to wait until the day shift. Plaintiff’s

cellmate contacted his father by text, asking him to contact the Intelligence Unit. The cellmate’s

father was unable to reach anyone. (Id.). The cellmate’s father called again the next morning and

spoke to Defendant Wilson, who said he would speak to the cellmate. (Id. at p. 4).

Later that day, other inmates threw a “feces bomb” into Plaintiff’s cell. (Doc. 13-1, p. 4).

Plaintiff and his cellmate reported the incident to Defendant Sergeant Bird. However, she merely

walked away, saying “that’s what you get for writing grievances.” Plaintiff explains that his

cellmate is notorious for writing grievances. Plaintiff and his cellmate had to clean up the feces

without gloves or proper cleaning materials. Throughout the day, other inmates issued threats to

stab Plaintiff and his cellmate (Id.).

The following day, March 20, 2025, another feces bomb was thrown into the cell. (Doc.

13-1, p. 4). Plaintiff and his cellmate requested Defendant Lieutenant Johnson to move them to

protective custody (“PC”). Johnson replied that he was not doing PC paperwork and suggested

Plaintiff could refuse housing, take the ticket, and go to segregation. Plaintiff declined this option.

He believed he would be safer staying in his cell because the gang members who threatened him

had warned him that he would not be safe in segregation either. (Id.).

From March 18, 2025, through March 25, 2025 (the date Plaintiff submitted his original

Complaint), Plaintiff did not leave his cell, skipping recreation, chow, and showers for fear of

attack (Doc. 13-1, p. 4). Plaintiff’s cellmate’s father contacted Warden Barwick and other officials,

but nothing has been done to move him and his cellmate to safety (Id. at p. 2, 4-5).

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff’s cellmate was taken to speak to “IA.” (Doc. 13-1, p. 5). When

the cellmate returned, the cellmate told Plaintiff that he had been forced to sign a document stating

that he, the cellmate, did not fear for his safety. The cellmate also told Plaintiff that IA threatened

to place him in a segregation cell with a rival gang member if his father did not stop calling the

Illinois State Police. (Id.).

On April 2, 2025, other inmates began to use extortion to obtain Plaintiff and his cellmate’s

property. (Doc. 13-1, p. 5). In exchange for his safety, Plaintiff has given other inmates his

commissary items and his television. (Id.).

On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff spoke to Counselor Haggert about his situation. (Doc. 13-1, p.

5). Haggert told Plaintiff to write a grievance. Plaintiff informed her that there were not any

grievance forms available in the housing unit. Haggert did not assist Plaintiff in obtaining

grievance forms. She laughed and said, “Well I guess you’re fucked, and I have…work to do.”

(Id).

On April 25, 2025, Correctional Officer Haney and another officer issued Plaintiff’s

neighbor a bogus shakedown slip. (Doc. 13-1, p. 6). Haney told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff attempted

to help his neighbor write a grievance about the incident, “we will fuck your shit up next.” (Id.).

Plaintiff asserts that he is still being extorted by other inmates in exchange for his safety.

(Doc. 13-1, p. 5). He states that he must let “someone” read all mail before sending it, and he has

no way to get help because staff are doing nothing. (Id.).

PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to state a constitutional claim because the grievance

process has been rendered unavailable to him due to staff conduct and a lack of access to grievance

forms, such claims are dismissed. Inmates do not have a constitutional right to an effective

grievance procedure. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Owens v. Hinsley,

635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). Additionally, the failure of prison officials to follow their own

procedures also does not, standing alone, violate the Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644,

648 (7th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot bring a constitutional claim against any of the

Defendants solely because he is unable to access and utilize the grievance process.

DISCUSSION

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and his articulation of his claims, the Court designates the

following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Wilson, Johnson,

Bird, Barwick, and Haggert.

Count 2: First Amendment retaliation claim against Bird and Haney.

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

First Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed

without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly1 pleading standard.

Count 1

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Wilson, Johnson, Bird, Barwick, and Haggert were all

informed that other inmates are threatening violence against him, but they have failed to take any

action to ensure his safety. Count 1 will proceed. See Santiago v. Wells, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th

Cir. 2010) (discussing the elements of a failure to protect claim).

Count 2

Prison officials are prohibited from retaliating against inmates for exercising their First

Amendment rights by filing grievances about their conditions of confinement. See Manuel v.

1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Nalley, 966 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2020). A plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim must allege that:

(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation likely

to deter future First Amendment activity; and (3) his protected activity was “at least a motivating

factor” in the defendant’s decision to take retaliatory action against him. Douglas v. Reeves, 964

F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009)).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Bird because he has

not pled facts linking Bird’s conduct to any First Amendment activity. According to Plaintiff, his

cellmate is “notorious” for filing grievances, but he has not filed any grievances. In fact, he states

that he does not have access to blank grievance forms. (Doc. 13-1, p. 4, 5, 6). Thus, Bird could not

have been retaliating against Plaintiff for a previous grievance that he had filed when she refused

to assist him after a feces bomb was thrown in his cell on March 19, 2025.

Plaintiff, however, has stated a viable claim against Haney for threatening to shake down

his cell if he assisted his neighbor in writing a grievance. Threatening penalties for future speech

violates the First Amendment. See Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F. 3d 518, 525 (7th Cir. 2009); Beatty

v. Henshaw, 826 F. App’x 561, 563 (7th Cir. 2020). Further, a colorable argument can be made

that Plaintiff has a First Amendment right “to assist other inmates with truthful grievances, subject

to legitimate penological interests.” Harris v. Walls, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1099 (C.D. Ill. July 7,

2014), aff’d 604 F. App’x 518, 521 (inferring based on the evidence that “some of [the plaintiff’s]

conduct was protected by the First Amendment). Count 2 therefore is dismissed as to Bird but will

proceed against Haney.

SECOND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a second motion seeking a temporary restraining order and requests that

the Court reconsider the denial of the first motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 11, 14).

Plaintiff states that he and his cellmate “have been threatened, attacked, and extorted to prevent

further attack.”2 He claims that he is unable to file grievances, and his only remedy is to seek

intervention by the Court. Plaintiff asks the Court to order that (1) he and his cellmate be

transferred to housing unit 6A; (2) he and his cellmate be transferred to Big Muddy River

Correctional Center; and (3) the Intel Unit come and take his statement about the issues he is

facing.

As Plaintiff has been advised, a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is an order issued

without notice to the party to be enjoined that may last no more than 14 days. FED. R. CIV. P.

65(b)(2). A TRO may issue without notice only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies

in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. FED. R.

CIV. P. 65(b)(1).

Again, Plaintiff has failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating the likelihood of

immediate and irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard. Accordingly, the motion for a

temporary restraining order and the request for reconsideration are DENIED.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is

GRANTED. (Doc. 13). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the proposed amended

complaint at Doc. 13-1 as the First Amended Complaint.

The First Amended Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant to Section 1915A.

COUNT 1 will proceed against Wilson, Johnson, Bird, Barwick, and Haggert. COUNT 2 will

proceed against Haney and is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Bird.

2 Plaintiff does not explain what he means by “attack.” The Court presumes that by “attack” Plaintiff is referencing

the “feces bombs” thrown into his cell on March 19 and 20, 2025. (See Doc. 13-1, p. 4).

The second Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and the request to reconsider denial

of the first Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order are DENIED. (Doc. 11, 14).

The Clerk of Court SHALL prepare for Wilson, Johnson, Bird, Barwick, Haggert, and

Haney the following: (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, and this Memorandum and Order to each

defendant’s place of employment. 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 pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

If the defendant can no longer 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, his

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 First

Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only to respond to the issues

stated in this Merit Review Order.

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: April 30, 2025

s/Stephen P. McGlynn

STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN

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.