# Powell

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · February 2, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11249806

## Case

- **Full name:** Dakota Powell v. Morgan County Sheriff’s Department, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** February 2, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11249806

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

DAKOTA POWELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 3:25-cv-03147-MMM
)
MORGAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, et al. )
)
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Big Muddy
Correctional Center, alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
at the time of an arrest, and during his pretrial detention. The case is now before the
Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Request Counsel. Docs. 1, 5.
A. Merit Review
The court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process identify
and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 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).
Allegations
Plaintiff names as Defendants several John/Jane Doe individuals. He names
Morgan County Sheriff’s Department County Jail Healthcare Staff, and Jacksonville
Police Department Officers.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 13, 2024, Jacksonville, Illinois, police officers,

while arresting Plaintiff, picked him up by the handcuffs, dislocated his left shoulder,
and threw him into a police cruiser by his throat, breaking his shoulder. Jail
Correctional Officers Jackson and Kurt calmed Plaintiff due to his excessive pain, and
refused to house him at the jail until he was taken for emergency medical attention,
respectively. Jackson and Kurt are not Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that from February 2024, through May, 2024, in Morgan County
Jail custody, he remained in severe pain and received no actual medical attention for his
pain or injuries. On May 13, Plaintiff alleges he asked for a medical protocol from
Officer Austin Manley, and they filled out a form asking what was wrong with Plaintiff
medically, and Plaintiff was then issued Tylenol. On May 14, Plaintiff asked for another

medical protocol from Officer Kurt, and he was again given Tylenol and placed back in
his cell. Plaintiff complained that his medical needs from his injury were not being
addressed, including his severe pain. Plaintiff then suffered a heart attack which
doctors at the hospital attributed to his extreme untreated shoulder pain.
Analysis
Plaintiff states a claim for excessive use of force against the unnamed
Jacksonville Police Officers. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (“[A]ll claims that

law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an
arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under
the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a
‘substantive due process’ approach.”); see also Dawson v. Brown, 803 F.3d 829, 833 (7th
Cir. 2015) (“Excessive force claims are reviewed under the Fourth Amendment’s

objective reasonableness standard.”).
Plaintiff also states a claim against the healthcare staff at the Morgan County Jail,
who he alleges provided him with no actual medical treatment for his severe pain,
resulting in a heart attack. It is plausible that a reasonable medical professional, situated
as the Doe healthcare staff Defendants were situated, acted in an objectively

unreasonable way in taking, or failing to take, certain intentional actions in response to
Plaintiff’s obvious medical needs. See Echols v. Johnson, 105 F.4th 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2024),
reh’g denied, 2024 WL 3992502 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024); Davis v. Rook, 107 F.4th 777, 780
(7th Cir. 2024).
Doe Defendants Issue

A plaintiff has the right “to sue unknown injurers” but “eventually the plaintiff must
discover the names of the defendants in order to serve summonses on them and thus
establish the court’s personal jurisdiction, without which the suit must be dismissed.”
Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1995). “To the extent the plaintiff
faces barriers to determining the identities of the unnamed defendants, the court must
assist the plaintiff in conducting the necessary investigation.” Donald v. Cook Cty.

Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). “Depending on the particular
circumstances of the case, the court may assist the plaintiff by … allowing the case to
proceed to discovery against high-level administrators with the expectation that they
will identify the officials personally responsible ….” Id.
Here, the Clerk is directed to add as Defendants, in their official capacities, for
the purpose of responding to discovery in this matter related to the identities of the

individuals who were involved in the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint, 1) Morgan
County, Illinois, Sheriff Mike Carmody and 2) Jacksonville, Illinois, Police Chief Doug
Thompson.
B. Motion to Request Counsel
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel on his behalf. Doc. 5.

The court undertakes an initial two-part inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff made a
reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or has been effectively precluded from doing so,
and, if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to
litigate it themselves. Watts v. Kidman, 42 F.4th 755, 760 (7th Cir. 2022), citing Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir 2007).

At the second step, the Court must consider the factual and legal difficulty of a
plaintiff’s claims, and the plaintiff’s competence to litigate them, while accounting for
the plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, litigation experience,
and intellectual capacity and psychological history (if information on those topics is
before the court). Watts, 42 F.4th at 760.

As to the first step, Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable attempt to secure
counsel on his own, nor is there any indication he is unable to do so. Before filing any
renewed motion for assistance in obtaining counsel, Plaintiff must try to find counsel on
his own. Typically, this is shown by attaching copies of letters sent to several civil rights
law firms, along with copies of responses received. Requests should be specific to this
lawsuit and describe the basic outline of his claims: that his shoulder was broken due to

excessive force of arresting officers and that the jail afterwards failed to provide him
with medical care.
As to the second part of the inquiry, if Plaintiff later renews his request for
counsel, he should address the factors related to his ability to represent himself so the
Court has that information before it at that time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [5] is DENIED with
leave to renew as stated above.
2. Plaintiff's motions for status [11], [12] are DENIED as MOOT.
3. The Clerk is directed to add as Defendants John/Jane Doe Jacksonville
Police Officers and John/Jane Doe Morgan County Jail Healthcare Personnel. The
Clerk is also direct to add as Defendants, in their official capacities, for the purpose
of responding to discovery in this matter related to the identities of the Doe
individuals who were involved in the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint, 1) Morgan
County, Illinois, Sheriff Mike Carmody and 2) Jacksonville, Illinois, Police Chief
Doug Thompson.
4. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Plaintiff states a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants Doe
as stated herein. Any additional claims against any other Defendant 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. Clerk is directed to
terminate all Defendants aside from those identified in Paragraph 3 above.
5. This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is to wait until
counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, so defense
counsel receives notice of such filings. 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.
6. The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver
is sent to file an answer. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. If the defendants have
not filed answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this
order, the plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After the
defendants have been served, the court will enter an order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
7. With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant worked while at that
address shall provide to the clerk said defendant's current work address, or, if not
known, said defendant's forwarding address. This information shall 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.
8. This district uses electronic filing. After defense counsel has filed an
appearance, defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of any
motion or other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not
need to mail to defense counsel motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed.
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 defendants' 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.
9. Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the
plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants shall arrange the
time for the deposition.
10. The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of any
change in his mailing address and telephone number. The 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.
11. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Entered this 2nd day of February, 2026.
s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11249806. Public record. Not legal advice.