Sanders v. Taylor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CORDELL SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-1009-RJD

J. TAYLOR, J. CAMARILLO, DARRELL

MELLENDORF, ROBERT E. REID,

SERGEANT STOVER, LIEUTENANT

LENEAR, OFFICER MASSEY, OFFICER

WOODWARD, OFFICER HART,

OFFICER MABREY, SERGEANT TATE,

BRANDY THOMASON, LIEUTENANT

GIPSON, SERGEANT FRITZGERALD,

OFFICER CANCINO, SERGEANT

JENKINS, NURSE WELTY, NURSE

KILL, NURSE ECHOLS, NURSE

RUHOL, NURSE LISA BROWN,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Cordell Sanders, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who

is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Lawrence Correctional

Center. In the Complaint, Sanders alleges that he was denied mental health and medical

care. He also alleges that officers used excessive force and failed to protect him, all in

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen

prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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).

The Complaint

Cordell Sanders is classified as seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) and has a history of

suicide attempts (Doc. 1, p. 2). On May 17, 2024, while in segregation at Lawrence,

Sanders began feeling depressed and hopeless due to his lack of prescriptions for Prozac

(an anti-depressant) and Depakote (a mood stabilizing medication) (Id.). Both

medications had expired, and Sanders had not yet received a refill (Id.). At approximately

2:30 p.m., he informed Lieutenant J. Taylor that he was suicidal and in need of crisis

intervention (Id.). Taylor merely made vomiting sounds and rejected Sanders’s request

for care (Id.).

Sanders later summoned Correctional Officer Stanley and requested crisis

intervention. Stanley informed Behavior Health Technician J. Camarillo who was in the

unit assessing another inmate (Doc. 1, p. 3). But Camarillo failed to evaluate Sanders. As

1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the 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 and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as

set forth in the Memoranda of Understanding between this Court and these two entities.

a result, he was unable to explain the expiration of his medications to her (Id.). At 3:30

p.m. Sanders informed Darrell Mellendorf of his need for crisis intervention, but

Mellendorf refused his request (Id.). Sanders eventually became suicidal and set his cell

on fire (Id.). The fire was immediately extinguished by prison guards.

In response to Sanders’s mental health crisis, Robert Reid and Brandy Thomason

opened the cell door and began spraying Sanders with an excessive amount of pepper

spray (Doc. 1, p. 3). Sanders alleges there was no reason for the use of pepper spray. Reid,

Mellendorf, and Sergeant Stover then entered Sanders’s cell and punched him in the face,

knocking off his eyeglasses and injuring his nose (Id. at p. 4). Mellendorf yanked Sanders

out of his cell and body slammed him onto the concrete floor onto the right side of his

face and punched him in the face (Id.). Reid then laid on top of Sanders and placed him

in a chokehold, choking him unconscious (Id.). Sanders regained consciousness when

Reid started kicking him in the stomach and face (Id.). Stover then laid on Sanders’s back

and attempted to choke him unconscious again. Mellendorf then choked Sanders until he

fell unconscious (Id.). Reid sprayed Sanders again with pepper spray (Id.). Due to his

inability to breath, Sanders flailed his legs and Lieutenant Gipson held his legs down and

Officer Woodward held his left arm, rendering him defenseless (Id.).

Eventually Reid handcuffed Sanders and placed him into a restraint chair (Doc. 1,

p. 4). He was placed in a soothing room in restraints for over four hours, unable to move

(Id.). As a result of his injuries, Sanders urinated blood for four days (Id. at p. 5). Upon

transferring to Pontiac Correctional Center on May 20, 2024, doctors there documented

his injuries including tenderness in his nose, neck, stomach, and groin, as well as trauma

to his head (Id.).

Sanders alleges that during the attack, Lieutenant Lenear, Officer Massey, Officer

Woodward, Officer Hart, Officer Mabrey, Sergeant Tate, Brandy Thomason, Lieutenant

Gipson, Sergeant Fritzgerald, and Officer Cacino stood around watching the assault (Doc.

1, p. 6) None of the officers sought to intervene in the assault.

After the assault, Nurse Welty examined Sanders’s injuries briefly (Doc. 1, p. 6).

Sanders informed her about the attack, but she merely high fived Reid. She then squirted

saline solution in his face and dumped some water on his head (Id.). Sanders alleges that

Welty’s actions merely caused the pepper spray to run off of his face to other parts of his

body (Id.). Welty failed to document his injuries, nor did she contact a doctor about his

head trauma (Id.). Sanders later informed Lieutenant Lenear that he was urinating blood

and Lenear called Welty to examine him a second time (Id. at p. 7). But she failed to treat

his issues. While on suicide watch, Sanders informed Sergeant Jenkins of his injuries, but

Jenkins said Sanders would not be allowed to go to an outside hospital (Id.). He refused

to obtain medical care for Sanders. From May 17 through May 20, 2024, Sanders informed

numerous nurses of his headache from the beating and blood in his urine (Id. at p. 7).

Sanders spoke with Nurse Welty, Nurse Kill, Nurse Echols, Nurse Ruhol, and Nurse Lisa

Brown, but no one would help him (Id.).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide

the pro se action into the following enumerated counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to mental

health needs against J. Taylor, J. Camarillo, and Darrell

Mellendorf for failing to provide Sanders with crisis care.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Darrell

Mellendorf, Robert Reid, Brandy Thomason, Sergeant

Stover, Lieutenant Gipson, and Officer Woodward for the

May 17, 2024 attack on Sanders.

Count 3: Illinois state law assault and battery claim against Darrell

Mellendorf, Robert Reid, Brandy Thomason, Sergeant

Stover, Lieutenant Gipson, and Officer Woodward for the

May 17, 2024 attack on Sanders.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claim against

Lieutenant Lenear, Officer Massey, Officer Woodward,

Officer Hart, Officer Mabrey, Sergeant Tate, Brandy

Thomason, Lieutenant Gipson, Sergeant Fritzgerald, and

Officer Cacino for refusing to intervene in the May 17, 2024

attack.

Count 5: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical

needs claim against Nurse Welty, Sergeant Jenkins, Nurse

Kill, Nurse Echols, Nurse Ruhol, and Nurse Lisa Brown for

failing to provide Sanders with medical care after the attack.

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 Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading

standard.2

2 This includes Sanders’s request to bring criminal charges of attempted murder, official

misconduct, and hate crime charges. Sanders cannot use Section 1983 to criminally charge a

person. A private citizen “has no right to compel a criminal prosecution.” Wimberly v. Julius, 606

F. App’x 309, 311 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 577 U.S. 987 (2015). See also 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”).

At this stage, Sanders adequately alleges claims for deliberate indifference to his

mental health and medical needs in Counts 1 and 5. He alleges that he spoke to officials

about his need for crisis intervention, but they refused to obtain care for him. He also

alleges that after the May 17, 2024 attack, he sought care from several officers and nurses

to no avail. Thus, Sanders states viable claims in Counts 1 and 5. Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d

859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012).

Sanders also adequately alleges an excessive force claim in Count 2. Sanders

alleges that officers sprayed him with pepper spray and then proceeded to beat him,

resulting in severe injuries to his head and torso. He further alleges that there was no

justification for the assault and that it was malicious and sadistic. Thus, Count 2 shall

proceed against the officers. Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009)

(“requirement for [an excessive force claim] is that [the officer] used force not ‘in a good-

faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,’ but ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause

harm.’”). Sanders also states a viable state law claim for assault and battery in Count 3.

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental

jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Sanders’s state

law claims derive from the same factual allegations as his federal claims. Wisconsin v. Ho-

Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008) (a loose factual connection between the

federal and state claims is generally sufficient). Thus, the Court will exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 3.

Finally, Sanders states a viable claim for officials’ failure to intervene in the assault.

He alleges that numerous officers were present during the attack but merely stood by

and failed to stop the assault. Thus, the claims against Defendants in Count 4 shall

proceed.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against J. Taylor, J Camarillo,

and Darrell Mellendorf. Count 2 shall proceed against Darrell Mellendorf, Robert Reid,

Brandy Thomason, Sergeant Stover, Lieutenant Gipson, and Officer Woodward. Count 3

shall proceed against Darrell Mellendorf, Robert Reid, Brandy Thomason, Sergeant

Stover, Lieutenant Gipson, and Officer Woodward. Count 4 shall proceed against

Lieutenant Lenear, Officer Massey, Officer Woodward, Officer Hart, Officer Mabrey,

Sergeant Tate, Brandy Thomason, Lieutenant Gipson, Sergeant Fritzgerald, and Officer

Cacino. Count 5 shall proceed against Nurse Welty, Sergeant Jenkins, Nurse Kill, Nurse

Echols, Nurse Ruhol, and Nurse Lisa Brown.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for J. Taylor, J. Camarillo, Darrell Mellendorf,

Robert Reid, Brandy Thomason, Sergeant Stover, Lieutenant Gipson, Lieutenant Lenear,

Officer Massey, Officer Woodward, Officer Hart, Officer Mabrey, Sergeant Tate, Sergeant

Fritzgerald, Officer Cacino, Nurse Welty, Sergeant Jenkins, Nurse Kill, Nurse Echols,

Nurse Ruhol, and Nurse Lisa Brown: (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 Sanders. 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 that defendant to pay the

full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Sanders,

the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not

known, 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.

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. Section 1997e(g).

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

stated in this Merit Review Order.

Because Sanders’s claims involve his mental health and medical care, the Clerk of

Court is DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.

If judgment is rendered against Sanders, and the judgment includes the payment

of costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,

regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(f)(2)(A).

Finally, Sanders 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: July 21, 2025.

/s/ Reona J. Daly

REONA J. DALY

U.S. Magistrate 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 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 all

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 this time, unless specifically

directed to do so.