Lipscomb

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PEORIA DIVISION

KEON LIPSCOMB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 1:25-cv-01257-MMM

)

MOLINERO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration at Joliet Treatment Center and

pursues claims of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Specifically he pursues claims related to his treatment by Major Brown and Lieutenant

Molinero while Plaintiff was in prison at Pontiac Correctional Center.

A. Merit Review

Legal standard. The case is before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint and identify and dismiss any

legally insufficient claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the

plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements

and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is plausible

on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Facts alleged. Plaintiff names as Defendants Lieutenant Molinero and Major

Brown.

Plaintiff suffers from pain and several injuries in his right shoulder. He brought

his medical issues to Dr. Alford, the physician at Pontiac. Plaintiff informed Dr. Alford

that he was suffering shoulder pain and that when officers cuff him behind his back it

causes excruciating right shoulder pain. Dr. Alford observed Plaintiff’s right shoulder

and scheduled Plaintiff for an appointment with physicians at St. James Hospital in

Pontiac for right shoulder tests. On receipt of the test results, Dr. Alford told Plaintiff that

he had three different injuries in his right shoulder and that being handcuffed behind his

back would cause pain and exacerbate his injuries. Dr. Alford said a permit would be

needed to ensure that the pain and injuries did not occur. Dr. Alford then prescribed

Plaintiff a medical permit and ordered that Plaintiff be restrained with a waist chain with

his hands at his sides instead of behind his back. Warden Mindi Nurse approved the

permit. The permit was issued in October 2024.

Defendants in this suit refused to honor Dr. Alford’s permit, telling Plaintiff he

was a troublemaker. Plaintiff began filing grievances to enforce the permit.

On around November 10 Defendants told Plaintiff they did not care about his pain

and would not allow him to wear the waist chain.

On around January 15 (Plaintiff writes 2024, but may mean 2025 given the other

dates in the pleading) Defendants told Plaintiff they hated him, they believe he deserves

to suffer, and that they don’t care who wrote what, they were not letting him wear the

waist chains, that it was Major Brown’s Cell House and he will not honor the permit.

Days later Defendant Molinero told Plaintiff he deserves to die and if Plaintiff

learns to shut the fuck up, he may allow him to wear the waist chain. Plaintiff was told

he could not wear the waist chain when he went to group, when he requested a crisis

team, or when he went to see a nurse. Plaintiff is seriously mentally ill.

Such incidents continued to occur. After the permit had been in effect for six

months, Dr. Alford renewed it. Warden Nurse again approved the permit.

The only time Plaintiff’s permit was honored was when rookie officers or “straight

officers” who said they did not want any part of the B.S. that Defendants had going on

with Plaintiff.

On June 18, 2025, Plaintiff went to group and asked to use his waist chain.

Molinero told Plaintiff, “You can die for all I care, no you cannot wear your belt.” Plaintiff

was left in handcuffs behind his back for four hours and was in so much pain that he was

in tears and began kicking the door, a Lieutenant (unclear if it was Molinero) came, saw

Plaintiff’s condition, noted Plaintiff was in tears, and said Plaintiff would never see the

waist chain and was wasting his time.

Plaintiff wrote many grievances regarding this issue. He received responses back

on far fewer grievances than he wrote and believes Defendants were destroying his

grievances or thwarting his access to the grievance procedure.

Analysis. Plaintiff states claims against Defendants under several Eighth

Amendment legal theories, including McDonald v. Hardy, 821 F.3d 882, 888 (7th Cir. 2016)

(interference with orders of medical providers); White v. Hefel, 875 F.3d 350, 358 (7th Cir.

2017) (sadistic use of force to cause harm); Stewart v. Estate of Mesrobian, 559 F. App’x 543,

548 (7th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference to painful handcuffs); Guitron v. Paul, 675 F.3d

1044, 1046 (7th Cir. 2012) (malicious infliction of pain), and perhaps others, and under the

First Amendment, Dobbey v. IDOC, 574 F.3d 443, 446 (7th Cir. 2009); Daugherty v.

Harrington, 906 F.3d 606, 610 (7th Cir. 2018); Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 783 (7th Cir.

2015).

Plaintiff also pursues a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under

Illinois law. He has stated such a claim. McGreal v. Village of Orland Park, 850 F.3d 308, 314

(7th Cir. 2017).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Upon merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds

Plaintiff states First and Eighth Amendment claims, and an Illinois law

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, against Defendants. Any

other claims and Defendants shall not be included in the case, except at the

Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

2. This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised to wait until

counsel has appeared for Defendant(s) before filing any motions, to give

notice to said Defendant and an opportunity to respond to any motions.

Motions filed before counsel has filed an appearance on behalf of Defendant

will be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the

Court now, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

3. The Court will attempt service on Defendant by mailing Defendant a waiver

of service. Defendant has 60 days from the date the waiver is sent to file an

answer. If Defendant has not answered or appeared through counsel within

90 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the

status of service. After Defendant has been served, the Court will enter an

order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.

4. For a named Defendant who no longer works at the address provided by

Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address

will provide to the clerk said Defendant's current work address, or, if not

known, said Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be used

only for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall

be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public

docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.

5. This district uses electronic filing, so, after defense counsel has filed an

appearance, defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of

any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff need not mail copies

of motions and other papers to defense counsel that Plaintiff has filed with

the Clerk. But this does not apply to discovery requests and responses.

Discovery requests and responses are not filed with the clerk. Plaintiff must

mail discovery requests and responses directly to defense counsel. Discovery

requests or responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled unless they

are attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not

begin until defense counsel has filed an appearance and the Court has

entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in more

detail.

6. Defense counsel is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff and shall

arrange the time for the deposition.

7. Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of any change in

mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court

of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of

this lawsuit, with prejudice.

8. If a Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the clerk within

30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect

formal service through the U.S. Marshals service on that Defendant and will

require said Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).

9. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order under

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Entered this 12th day of November, 2025.

s/Michael M. Mihm

MICHAEL M. MIHM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE