# Dampier

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · July 20, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11408116

## Case

- **Full name:** Terrell Dampier v. Warden Jeremiah Brown, Lt. Kyle Fuller, C/O Ralston, C/O West, C/O Petry, C/O Stephen Germak, C/O Toliver, and Sergeant Bowker
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** July 20, 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/11408116

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERRELL DAMPIER, #M22181, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 26-cv-00025-SMY
)
WARDEN JEREMIAH BROWN, )
LT. KYLE FULLER, )
C/O RALSTON, )
C/O WEST, )
C/O PETRY, )
C/O STEPHEN GERMAK, )
C/O TOLIVER, and )
SERGEANT BOWKER, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Terrell Dampier, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations that allegedly occurredwhen Plaintiff
passed out from smoke inhalationat LawrenceCorrectional Center. (Docs. 1 and 1-1). He claims
that instead of movinghim safely away from the fumes, Defendants beat him and issued him two
disciplinary tickets. Id.
The Complaint is now before the Court for review under 28U.S.C. §1915A. Any portion
that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, orseeksmonetary relieffrom an immune
defendant must be dismissed. Id.
TheComplaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-7): After another
inmate started a fire in Lawrence Correctional Center’s restrictive housing unit on or around
February 13, 2025, Plaintiff lost consciousness from smoke inhalation. Id. at 5-6. Lieutenant
Fuller and Lawrence’s Emergency Response Team (Lieutenant Ralston, Sergeant Bowker, C/O

West, and C/O Petry) found him unresponsive in his cell (Unit A12 Upper Tier). Instead of moving
him away from the fumes, they sprayed him with pepper spray, beat him, and restrained him.
Plaintiff regained consciousness in the process, and the officers took him to see the nurse.
The entire incident could have been avoided if prison staff had conducted routine well-
being checks on the inmates. Because they did not, another inmate started a fire that caused
Plaintiff to suffer permanent injuries, including breathing difficulties and persistent pain. Id.
Plaintiff received two disciplinary tickets for this incident. The first ticket was issued by
Lieutenant Fuller for disobeying a direct order (215). The second ticket was issued by Sergeant
Bowker for causing a dangerous disturbance (105). The tickets resulted in a wrongful finding of

guilt by Lawrence’s adjustment committee (C/O Toliver and C/O Germak) that was affirmed by
Lawrence’s warden (Warden Jeremiah Brown). As punishment, Plaintiff received 14 days in
segregation, 2 months of C grade, and 2 months of commissary restriction. Id.
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Fuller, Ralston, Bowker,
West, and Petry for spraying Plaintiff with pepper spray, beating him, and
restraining him after finding him unresponsive from smoke inhalation on or
around February 13, 2025.

Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants Fuller, Bowker, Toliver,
Germak, and Brown for depriving Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest
without due process of law by punishing him with 14 days of segregation,
2 months of C grade, and 2 months of commissary restriction for disobeying
a direct order (215) and causing a dangerous disturbance (105) on or around
February 13, 2025.
Any other claim mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) (action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face”).
Discussion
Count 1
The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on state actors to “take reasonable measures to
guarantee the safety of inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Hudson

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). To state a claim based on a prison official’s failure to
protect an inmate from harm, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the denial of protection posed a
substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff; and (2) each defendant acted with deliberate
indifference to that risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
The Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of excessive force against an inmate. Wilkins
v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 36-37 (2010). To state a claim for the use of unauthorized force, the
plaintiff must plead facts which suggest the force was carried out “maliciously and sadistically”
and not as part of “a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Id. at 40 (quoting Hudson
v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6(1992)).
Here, the Complaint states a viable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Fuller,

Ralston, Bowker, West, and Petryfor allegedly spraying Plaintiff with pepper spray, beating him,
and restraining him on or around February 13, 2025. Because Plaintiff was unconscious at the
time, the allegations suggest that Defendants’ conduct was malicious and sadistic, not part of a
good-faith effort to maintain order or restore discipline. Accordingly, Count 1 will proceed against
these defendants in their individual capacities.
Count 2
To state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment arising from an unfair disciplinary
action, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a constitutionally protected liberty interest
triggering the right to due process of law; and (2) deficient procedures in connection with the

deprivation of that interest. Lisle v. Welborn, 933 F.3d 705, 720 (2019). The question is “whether
a protected liberty interest exists, and if so, whether [Plaintiff] received adequate process to protect
it.” Ealy v. Watson, 109 F.4th 958, 964 (7th Cir. 2024). A protected liberty interest arises where
a plaintiff’s punishment amounts to an “atypical and significant hardship” in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life. See Croom v. Schoenbeck, App. No. 24-1875, 2025 WL 957898,
at *1 (7th Cir. March 31, 2025) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
Plaintiff’s punishment with 14 days in segregation does not rise to this level, even when
combined with a commissary restriction and demotion to C grade. See Judkins v. Pierce, 2023
WL 6141608, at *2 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) (punishment with 6 months of segregation and loss
or restriction of privileges do not, without more, implicate a protected liberty interest) (citing Lekas

v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 605, 613 (7th Cir. 2005) (temporary loss of contact visits and restricted
commissary); Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 533 n.7 (7th Cir. 1995) (6 months of disciplinary
segregation and demotion to C grade)). He provides no other information about the conditions he
faced in segregation. Nor does he describe due process rights he was denied at his prison
disciplinary hearing on the two tickets. Therefore, Count 2 will be dismissed without prejudice
against all defendants.
Disposition
The Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. COUNT 1
will proceed against Defendants FULLER, RALSTON, BOWKER, WEST, and PETRY, in
their individual capacities.
COUNT 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice against Defendants JEREMIAH BROWN,
STEPHEN GERMAK, and C/O TOLIVER for failure to state a claim against them, and
COUNT 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice against ALL DEFENDANTS on the same ground.

Defendants JEREMIAH BROWN, STEPHEN GERMAK, and C/O TOLIVER are
DISMISSED without prejudice as defendants.
The Clerk shall prepare for Defendants FULLER, RALSTON, BOWKER, WEST, and
PETRY: (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). Pursuant to Local
Rule 8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, even though he was granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
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 TERMINATE Defendants JEREMIAH
BROWN, STEPHEN GERMAK, and C/O TOLIVER as parties in CM/ECF.
IT ISSO ORDERED.
DATED: 7/20/2026 KM

STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. 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 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 at this time, unless
specifically directed to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11408116. Public record. Not legal advice.