Brown v. Bien

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BRANDON O. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-00288-JPG

)

JACKSON COUNTY JAIL, )

SGT. JESSICA BIEN, )

DEPUTY BOHN, )

SGT. WILL, )

SGT. HILL, )

SGT. SPALDING,1 )

CPL. KIRSTEN,2 )

DEPUTY ACOSTOR, )

and NURSE CARLA KANE, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

This matter is before the Court for screening of the First Amended Complaint filed by

Plaintiff Brandon Brown pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 17 to 17-3). He claims the

defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and retaliated against him

for filing grievances at Jackson County Jail. He seeks money damages. The First Amended

Complaint is subject to preliminary review and dismissal of any portion that is legally frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant.3

1 Plaintiff refers to this defendant as “Sgt. Spaulding” and “Sgt. Spalding,” while the grievance documents

identify this individual as “Lt. K. Spradling.” The Court will refer to this defendant as “Sgt. Spalding.”

2 Plaintiff refers to this defendant as “Cpl Kerstern” and “Corporal Kirsten,” while the grievance documents

identify this individual as “Capt. L. Kersten.” The Court will refer to this defendant as “Cpl. Kirsten.”

3 Plaintiff was on home confinement when he commenced this action. Section 1915A governs the screening

of a complaint in a civil action filed by a “prisoner” as that term is defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), while

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) governs the screening of a non-prisoner complaint. Both standards require dismissal of any

portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from

an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B).

First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Docs. 17 to

17-3): Plaintiff is a paraplegic with a severe spinal injury resulting from old gunshot wounds.

(Doc. 17-3, p. 3). He was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Jackson

County Jail from January 22, 2025 to February 11, 2025. (Doc. 17, p. 5; Doc. 17-1, p. 1).

Defendants Bien, Hill, Acostor, Bohn, Spalding, Kane, and Kirsten acted individually and together

to expose him to inhumane living conditions, treat him with deliberate indifference, and act with

malicious intent. (Doc. 17, p. 5).

Defendants Bien, Hill, Acostor, Bohn, Spalding, Kane, and Kirsten subjected him to

inhumane living conditions. They placed him in a cell containing pests, mold, and blood on the

floors and toilet. (Id. at 6; Doc. 17-1, p. 2; Doc. 17-3, pp. 79-80). Plaintiff was denied a proper

mattress, toilet seat, clean clothing, clean water, cleaning supplies, hygiene items, showers, and

recreation time. Id. He was given contaminated food and denied meal trays. Id. He was also

denied medical care for a large, external bleeding hemorrhoid. Id. Plaintiff’s physical condition

deteriorated, resulting in malnourishment, dehydration, and bleeding that necessitated hospital

treatment. (Id.; Doc. 17-3, p. 1). His mental health also declined, resulting in anxiety and

depression. (Doc. 17-1, p. 2). Plaintiff submitted verbal and written requests for medical and

mental health treatment. Id. at 2. Defendants Bohn, Acostor, and Kane knew of his serious

medical and mental health needs and refused to provide help or refer him to someone who could.

Id. He submitted grievances to complain about his living conditions and lack of medical care, and

Defendants ignored him.

In retaliation for filing the grievances, Sergeants Spalding and Will authorized punishment

that included the denial of meals and delayed medical slips. This chilled his ability to report abuse,

caused physical harm, and resulted in mental anguish. Id.

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff identifies Jackson County Jail as a defendant but fails to mention this defendant

in the statement of his claim. 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). The Jail is not a person subject

to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, Jackson County Jail shall be dismissed with prejudice

from this action.

Discussion

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

Count 1: Defendants Bien, Hill, Acostor, Bohn, Spalding, Kane, and Kirsten

subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional living conditions at Jackson County

Jail from January 22, 2025 to February 11, 2025, in violation of his rights

under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Count 2: Defendants Bohn, Acostor, and Kane denied Plaintiff adequate medical care

for his hemorrhoid and related bleeding condition at Jackson County Jail

from January 22, 2025 to February 11, 2025, in violation of his rights under

the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Count 3: Defendants Bohn, Acostor, and Kane denied Plaintiff mental health

treatment for anxiety and depression at Jackson County Jail from

January 22, 2025 to February 11, 2025, in violation of his rights under the

Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Count 4: Defendants Spalding and Wills retaliated against Plaintiff for filing

grievances about his unconstitutional conditions of confinement by denying

him adequate food and medical slips at Jackson County Jail from

January 22, 2025 to February 11, 2025, in violation of his rights under the

First Amendment.

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

considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled. 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”).

Counts 1, 2, and 3

Counts 1, 2, and 3 stem from Plaintiff’s allegedly unconstitutional conditions of

confinement at the Jail. The applicable legal standard for these claims depends on his status as a

pretrial detainee or convicted person when his claims arose. If Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee,

the Fourteenth Amendment’s objective unreasonableness standard governs all three claims.

Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) (applying objective unreasonableness

standard to a variety of conditions-of-confinement claims, including claims of inadequate medical

care). If he was convicted prisoner, Plaintiff’s claims are governed by the Eighth Amendment’s

deliberate indifference standard. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical claims);

Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 492-93 (7th Cir. 2006) (general conditions of confinement). Under

both standards, Plaintiff must describe each defendant’s personal involvement in or responsibility

for a constitutional deprivation. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); McCree v. Sherrod, 408 F.

App’x 990 (7th Cir. 2011).

As for Count 1, the allegations suggest that Defendants Bien, Hill, Acostor, Bohn,

Spalding, Kane, and Kirsten acted objectively unreasonable and with deliberate indifference when

exposing the plaintiff to unconstitutional living conditions at the Jail for three weeks. This claim

will proceed against each individual defendant.

As for Counts 2 and 3, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bohn, Acostor, and Kane were

responsible for knowingly denying Plaintiff necessary medical care and mental health treatment.

Both claims will receive further review against these individual defendants. However, the

allegations are insufficient to demonstrate personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation on

the part of any other defendants, so Counts 2 and 3 will be dismissed without prejudice for failure

to state a claim against all other individuals.

Count 4

To proceed with a First Amendment claim of retaliation, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he

engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) he suffered a deprivation that will likely deter the

protected speech; and (3) the protected speech was a motivating factor in the defendant’s actions.

Antoine v. Ramos, 497 F. App’x 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

Spalding and Will retaliated against him for filing grievances to complain about the conditions of

his confinement by denying him access to food and medical slips. These allegations are sufficient

to articulate a retaliation claim against Defendants Spalding and Will. However, Count 4 is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against the other defendants.

Pending Motions

A. Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 18)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. An indigent

plaintiff seeking representation by court-recruited counsel must demonstrate: (a) reasonable efforts

to locate counsel on his own; and (b) an inability to litigate the matter without representation. See

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not satisfied either requirement.

First, Plaintiff mentions his unsuccessful efforts to find counsel before seeking the Court’s

assistance, but he provides no evidence of those efforts. Second, Plaintiff has not shown that he

needs court-recruited counsel at this early stage of litigation. The First Amended Complaint

survives screening and will be served on Defendants. Until all defendants answer, there is nothing

for Plaintiff to do. Once answers are filed, the Court will enter a scheduling order with further

instructions and deadlines for litigation.

Plaintiff may renew his request for counsel at any time it becomes too difficult to litigate

this matter pro se. He should support his new motion with evidence of his efforts to contact at

least three attorneys or law firms about representation in this case. He should include copies of all

written correspondence sent to or received from these attorneys/firms with the new motion or

provide a list of each attorney’s name, dates of contact, and description of each response.

B. Second Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19)

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s change in

circumstances since filing this action includes his hospitalization and resulting expenses that are

higher than anticipated. Given this, the Court will SUSPEND its efforts to collect any portion of

the filing fee of $350.00 at this time. Plaintiff must notify the Court of any change in financial

circumstances that allows him to pay the filing fee.

Disposition

The First Amended Complaint (Docs. 17 to 17-3) survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, as follows:

• COUNT 1 will proceed against Defendants JESSICA BIEN, SGT. HILL,

DEPUTY ACOSTOR, DEPUTY BOHN, SGT. SPALDING, CARLA KANE,

and CPL. KIRSTEN;

• COUNTS 2 and 3 will proceed against Defendants DEPUTY BOHN, DEPUTY

ACOSTOR, and CARLA KANE;

• COUNT 4 will proceed against Defendants WILLS and SPALDING.

COUNTS 1, 2, 3, and 4 are DISMISSED without prejudice against all other defendants for failure

to state a claim. In addition, Defendant JACKSON COUNTY JAIL is DISMISSED with

prejudice because the First Amended Complaint states no claim for relief against the entity.

The Clerk shall prepare for ALL INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS (except Jackson County

Jail): (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 (Docs. 17 to 17-3), 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 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 SDIL-LR 8.2, Defendants need only respond

to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.

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).

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendant JACKSON COUNTY

JAIL as a party in CM/ECF and ENTER the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/9/2025

s/ J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

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 First Amended Complaint. After service has been

achieved, Defendants will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your First Amended

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.