# Sanders

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11331409

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Sanders v. Darren Galloway, P/O John Doe 1, C/O John Doe 2 (Jones), Lt. Karl R. Bradford, Lt. Jacob Horn, Nurse Jane Doe 1, Nurse Jane Doe 2, and C. Kwiatkowski
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 6, 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/11331409

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROBERT SANDERS, #M54914, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-02139-SMY
)
DARREN GALLOWAY, )
P/O JOHN DOE 1, )
C/O JOHN DOE 2 (JONES), )
LT. KARL R. BRADFORD, )
LT. JACOB HORN, )
NURSE JANE DOE 1, )
NURSE JANE DOE 2, )
and C. KWIATKOWSKI, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Sanders filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
constitutional claims stemming from a cellmate attack at Shawnee Correctional Center. He seeks
monetary relief. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which requires early screening and dismissal of any portion that is legally frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant.
See id.
The Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-37): Plaintiff
transferred from Jacksonville Correctional Center to Shawnee Correctional Center on
December 13, 2023. Id. at 6. His transfer was prompted by his refusal of housing with inmates
who smoked and ate drug-laced paper contraband at Jacksonville. Plaintiff outlined these concerns
with his health and safety in an emergency grievance and letter he sent to Warden Darren Galloway
on December 14, 2023. Id.
Two days later, Plaintiff was placed in restrictive housing and assigned a cellmate who
smoked synthetic drugs. Id. at 7. Plaintiff should not have been housed with Inmate Brown for

several reasons. Plaintiff had not completed intake, he had a pending disciplinary infraction, and
he suffered from severe mental illness. Inmate Brown had a history of drug use, violence, and
gang activity. He was also much larger than Plaintiff (Inmate Brown weighed 210 pounds, while
Plaintiff weighed only 125 pounds). Id.
Other inmates soon tried to convince Inmate Brown that Plaintiff was a confidential
informant. Inmate Brown told Plaintiff he was member of the gangster disciples and could not be
housed with a “snitch.” Id. at 8. To avoid conflict, Plaintiff agreed to request a housing change.
The two inmates completed a cell change form and submitted it to staff during mail collection.
Plaintiff also submitted his request to a placement officer. Id.
The same night, Inmate Brown obtained drug-laced paper contraband and began smoking

it. Staff allowed trafficking, trading, and smoking of this contraband. Warden Galloway had
knowledge of the rampant drug use in restrictive housing but failed to implement remedial
measures. Id.
The housing situation grew tense on December 17, 2023, when other inmates asked why
Inmate Brown was still housed with a “snitch.” Id. at 9. Inmate Brown threatened to harm Plaintiff
in the presence of staff. He also wrote grievances and letters threatening to harm him if the housing
situation did not change. Inmate Brown sent this correspondence to Placement Officer John Doe
1 (P/O Doe 1) and Warden Galloway. On three occasions, Inmate Brown told Correctional Officer
John Doe 2 (Jones) (C/O Doe 2) that he would “beat [Plaintiff’s] ass or even kill [him] . . . [if] yall
don’t move him out of my cell.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff requested a housing change again. Id. at 9.
C/O Doe 2 laughed off this request, saying, “[Y]our celly aint going to [do] nothing he’s just
talking.” Id. (errors in original). He recommended writing a grievance instead. Id. at 9-10. When
Plaintiff requested and was denied a grievance form, he wrote a letter to Warden Galloway and

P/O Doe 1 on December 17, 2023. Id. at 10. The same evening, Inmate Brown became high while
smoking synthetic contraband and warned Plaintiff, “tomorrow might be your last day celly. I
think I may act tomorrow celly.” Id. at 10-11.
On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff was taken for processing by P/O Doe 1 and refused to
return to the cell. Id. at 11. Plaintiff explained that Inmate Brown was a frequent smoker who
believed Plaintiff was a confidential informant and threatened to harm him for this reason.
P/O Doe 1 agreed to help Plaintiff move. P/O Doe 1 called the placement office and confirmed
that Plaintiff’s request for a housing change was being processed. In the meantime, P/O Doe 1
warned Plaintiff not to refuse housing because he would receive a disciplinary ticket. Id.
Plaintiff waited for a housing change, but it never occurred. When he requested the status

of his housing change during another shift, the staff had no idea what he was talking about.
Plaintiff wrote P/O Doe 1 to complain that his safety was not taken seriously. Id. at 12. Inmate
Brown began smoking again and accused Plaintiff of snitching to get moved. Inmate Brown then
wrote to the warden and told Plaintiff, “If this don’t work, I’m killing you!” Id.
On December 19, 2023, Inmate Brown was taken from the cell and later returned upset.
Lieutenant Horn had confronted him about sending threats against Plaintiff through the mail, and
Inmate Brown refused to talk to the officer. After smoking, Inmate Brown again threatened
Plaintiff, who sent the warden a cell change form and letter complaining about the risk of a cellmate
assault. Id.
On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff awakened to the strong smell of smoke. Inmate Brown
was acting strangely, while grinding his teeth, staring wide-eyed, and lashing out at staff. Inmate
Brown told Lieutenant Karl Bradford and C/O Doe 2 that he would kill Plaintiff or take him
hostage. Id. at 13. Both officers commented that he must be high. Lt. Bradford then told Inmate

Brown to “go ahead and kill [Plaintiff] and you’ll be in prison for life.” Id. With that, both officers
walked away from the cell.
Moments later, Inmate Brown knocked Plaintiff unconscious. He then assaulted him,
hogtied him, and took him hostage. When Plaintiff regained consciousness, Inmate Brown was
abusing him physically and sexually, while carrying out requests for different types of assault on
Plaintiff from other inmates. As C/O Doe 2 approached the cell, Inmate Brown placed a cover
over the bed to block the officer’s view of Plaintiff. Inmate Brown told the officer he should have
been taken seriously when he warned staff that he would kill Plaintiff. Id. at 14. Plaintiff called
out for help, and Inmate Brown delivered blows to his head until he lost consciousness again.
Plaintiff next recalled staff members removing the rope and ripped sheet used to hogtie him while

other staff members subdued Inmate Brown. Id.
Plaintiff was injured to the point that he could not walk, so he was escorted to Shawnee’s
health care unit (HCU). Nurses Jane Doe 1 and 2 examined him in the presence of numerous male
staff members and Warden Galloway. When Plaintiff complained of pain in certain areas, like his
knee, Nurse Doe 1 implied that he was faking it. Plaintiff did not feel like he could report his
injuries. Nurse Doe 1 then stopped the exam and gave staff a blister pack of Tylenol for Plaintiff.
Id. at 15.
Warden Galloway worked with other staff to photograph Plaintiff’s injuries. Id. The
warden apologized for what happened and said he thought Plaintiff had moved from the cell.
Warden Galloway informed Plaintiff that he would immediately be transferred for his safety.
When Plaintiff asked for his Tylenol and crutches/walker, Nurses Doe 1 and 2 denied his requests.
They said he would receive treatment at his new facility. Id. at 16.
Plaintiff was forced to hop on one leg to a shower where Behavioral Health Technician

Kwiatkowski (BHT Kwiatkowski) conducted a mental health assessment. During the interview,
Plaintiff was separated from six tactical team members by a shield. Inmate Brown was stationed
in a shower only twenty feet away. As BHT Kwiatkowski completed Plaintiff’s mental health
assessment, Inmate Brown called him names, threatened him, and yelled at him.
BHT Kwiatkowski knew that a mental health assessment conducted under these conditions was
ineffective and failed to use the assessment to make referrals for treatment with qualified mental
health professionals. Id. at 17. Due to his fear, Plaintiff did not report his sexual assault while at
Shawnee. Following his transfer to Pinckneyville, Plaintiff attempted suicide. Id. at 19.
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Galloway for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to the serious risk of harm to Plaintiff’s present and
future health and safety posed by smoked drugs at Shawnee.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Galloway, P/O Doe 1, C/O Doe
2 (Jones), Lt. Bradford, and Lt. Horn for failing to protect Plaintiff from the
serious risk of attack by his cellmate at Shawnee in December 2023.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Nurses Jane Doe 1 and 2 for responding
with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s injuries following the attack by his
cellmate at Shawnee in December 2023.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against BHT Kwiatkowski for responding with
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s mental health needs following the
attack by his cellmate at Shawnee in December 2023.

Count 5: Illinois intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants
for their action or inaction in Plaintiff’s attack by a cellmate and denial of
medical and/or mental health care in December 2023 at Shawnee.
Count 6: Illinois negligence claim against Defendants for causing injuries to Plaintiff
by breaching the duty of care they each owed to him.

Any other claim mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Discussion
Count 1
An Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises when
a defendant responds with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm posed to an inmate’s
health or safety by his living conditions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). This
claim requires allegations of an objectively serious denial of “the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities,” such as food, clothing, medical care, or housing. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. It
also requires allegations of deliberate indifference by each defendant. Id.
Although the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee smoke-free or drug-free prisons, an
inmate may state a claim if he alleges that prison officials disregarded a serious risk to his health
or safety. Rogers v. Crow, 2023 WL 8235752, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2023) (citing Tellez v.
Uchtman, 2010 WL 746991, at *3-4 (S.D. Ill. March 1, 2010). Here, Plaintiff alleges he was
exposed to the rampant use of smoked drugs at the prison, but describes no exposure to drugs by
anyone other than his cellmate. Nor does he claim to have medical conditions that could be
exacerbated by his alleged exposure to drug use in the general inmate population. As such, Count

1 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Count 2
The Eighth Amendment also imposes a duty on prison officials to take reasonable steps to
protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. A plaintiff
bringing a failure-to-protect claim must plead facts suggesting he was incarcerated under
conditions posing a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety and describing deliberate
indifference by each defendant. Id. See also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 2006).
He must identify a specific, impending, and substantial threat. Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92 (7th
Cir. 1996).

According to the allegations, Plaintiff repeatedly informed Warden Galloway, P/O Doe 1,
C/o Doe 2, Lt. Bradford, and Lt. Horn about the threat to his safety posed by Inmate Brown from
December 16-20, 2023, each defendant knowingly or intentionally disregarded the risk, and
Plaintiff was attacked on December 20, 2023. Therefore, Count 2 will proceed against these
defendants.
Counts 3 and 4
An Eighth Amendment claim may also arise from the denial of adequate medical care or
mental health treatment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976); Kupsky v. McLaren, 748
F. App’x 74 (7th Cir. 2019). To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a serious medical or
mental health condition; and (2) each defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the condition

by consciously disregarding it. Id.
As for Count 3, Plaintiff alleges he suffered serious injuries during a cellmate attack on
December 20, 2023. Among other things, his knee was injured to the point that he could not walk.
Even so, Nurse Jane Doe 1 and Nurse Jane Doe 2 failed to adequately evaluate or treat the injury.
They also denied his request for treatment of pain with Tylenol or mobility assistance with
crutches/walker, deferring all treatment until he arrived at his next prison. Based on these
allegations, Count 3 will proceed against Nurses Jane Doe 1 and 2.
With respect to Count 4, Plaintiff alleges he suffered emotional trauma from his attack that
was so severe he attempted suicide. He claims that immediately after the attack, BHT
Kwiatkowski conducted a mental health assessment of Plaintiff in a deliberately indifferent
manner, by interviewing Plaintiff in a shower in the presence of six tactical team members and
only twenty feet away from his attacker. He further alleges that during his mental health
assessment, his attacker yelled at him, called him names, and made threats of further harm. The

defendant then failed to make any referrals for treatment with a qualified professional. Count 4
will therefore proceed against BHT Kwiatkowski for exhibiting deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious mental health condition following the cellmate attack on December 20, 2023.
Counts 5 and 6
The Illinois state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (Count
5) and negligence (Count 6) arise from the same facts that give rise to the constitutional claims in
Counts 1 through 4. As such, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
In Count 5, Plaintiff asserts an IIED claim against all defendants. A claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress arises under Illinois state law when: (1) defendants engage in

extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) defendants either intend to inflict severe emotional distress
or know there is a high probability that their conduct will cause severe emotional distress; and (3)
the defendants’ conduct in fact causes severe emotional distress. McGreal v. Village of Orland
Park, 850 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2017). As Plaintiff alleges the above-described conduct of each
defendant resulted in emotional trauma that drove him to attempt suicide, Count 5 will proceed
against the defendants.
Plaintiff asserts a negligence claim in Count 6. He alleges each defendant owed him a duty
of care and caused his injuries and resulting damages when they breached this duty. He relies on
the allegations offered in support of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, which
are sufficient to state a viable negligence claim under Illinois law. Count 6 will proceed.
Identification of Unknown Defendants
Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with claims against the following unidentified
defendants: Placement Officer John Doe 1, Correctional Officer John Doe 2 (Jones), Nurse Jane

Doe 1, and Nurse Jane Doe 2. These defendants must be identified by name before service of the
lawsuit can be made on them. The Current Warden of Shawnee Correctional Center will be added
as a defendant, in an official capacity, and will be responsible for responding to discovery aimed
at identifying the unknown defendants by first and last name. Once the warden enters an
appearance, the Court will enter a Doe Identification Order with instructions and deadlines for
exchanging information to help identify these defendants. Once their names are discovered,
Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of the generic
designations in the Complaint.
Disposition
The Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the

following claims will proceed against the below-listed defendants:
• COUNT 2 against GALLOWAY, BRADFORD, HORN, PLACEMENT
OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN DOE 2.

• COUNT 3 against NURSE JANE DOE 1 and NURSE JANE DOE 2.

• COUNT 4 against KWIATKOWSKI.

• COUNTS 5 and 6 against ALL DEFENDANTS.

• The WARDEN OF SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official
capacity only) is ADDED as a defendant for purposes of identifying each
unknown defendant.

COUNT 1 against GALLOWAY is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state
a claim.
With regard to COUNTS 2 through 6, the Clerk shall prepare for WARDEN OF
SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only), DARREN GALLOWAY,
KARL R. BRADFORD, JACOB HORN, C. KWIATKOWSKI, and, once identified, P/O
JOHN DOE 1, C/O JOHN DOE 2 (JONES), NURSE JANE DOE 1, and NURSE JANE DOE

2: (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 (Doc. 1), 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
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Under SDIL-LR
8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues in this Merit Review Order. The Warden of
Shawnee Correctional Center (official capacity defendant) need only appear in this matter.
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’s Office is DIRECTED to ADD the WARDEN OF SHAWNEE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only) as_a defendant in CM/ECF and
ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 6, 2026

STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

1]

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 Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendants will
enter an appearance and file an Answer to your 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 now, unless specifically directed to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11331409. Public record. Not legal advice.