Crossley

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

URBANA DIVISION

JARVON CROSSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:26-cv-02090-JEH

FAIRLESS, et al.,

Defendants.

Merit Review Order

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Danville

Correctional Center (“Danville”), filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 11). This case is before

the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

I

In reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual

allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour,

729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are

insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is

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

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does

not require “detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x

588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

II

Plaintiff files suit against Defendants Dr. Fairless, Sergeant Saldana, and

Danville Correctional Center Mental Health Department. Plaintiff does not name

Lieutenant Esteves as a Defendant in his Amended Complaint. Therefore,

Defendant Esteves is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff alleges he was housed in the restrictive housing unit at Danville

between approximately August 9-29, 2025. During this time, the Danville Dietary

Department was experiencing a shortage of protein packs, which is a mandatory

part of Plaintiff’s daily Halal diet. Plaintiff states that most staff members allowed

inmates who received the Halal diet to choose between the regular meal tray or

the Halal diet while in restrictive housing when there was a shortage of protein

packs. On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sergeant Saldana did not

allow him to choose between the regular meal tray and the Halal diet.

On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff asked Defendant Saldana for permission to

speak with a psychiatrist because his grandfather had passed away, he was in

segregation, and he was being denied food. Defendant Saldana allegedly told

Plaintiff that he could not speak with a mental health professional unless he

wanted to harm himself. Plaintiff responded that a psychiatrist was always on call,

especially for inmates being housed in restrictive housing. Defendant Saldana

again told Plaintiff to call a crisis if he wanted to see a doctor.

Plaintiff decided to call at crisis. Defendant Saldana then placed Plaintiff in

an office to speak with Lieutenant Esteves, who informed Plaintiff that she would

conduct his crisis assessment and relay the information to the doctor. Plaintiff

alleges he was unsure if Esteves was qualified to hear personal information, but

he informed Esteves that he simply needed to talk to someone and was not going

to harm himself or others. After Esteves spoke with Defendant Dr. Fairless, she

informed Plaintiff that Dr. Fairless was placing Plaintiff on crisis watch with a 30-

minute watch. Dr. Fairless allegedly instructed Plaintiff to remove his clothing and

threatened to call a tactical team if he refused. Plaintiff alleges he informed Dr.

Fairless that he is Muslim, and it is very inappropriate to be naked in front of

women and others.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Saldana escorted him to a crisis watch cell.

Plaintiff removed his clothes and threw them at Saldana’s feet. Plaintiff alleges

Saldana further humiliated him by ordering him to pick up the clothes and hand

them over. Saldana allegedly threatened to spray Plaintiff’s private area with mace

if he did not comply. When Plaintiff handed Saldana the clothes, Saldana allegedly

“just looked at [Plaintiff] for a long period of time with pure lust in his eyes.” Id.

at p. 7. Saldana shut the cell door and continued looking at Plaintiff through the

glass. Plaintiff alleges he was so humiliated and disgusted that he charged and spit

on the glass. Salanda then allegedly said, “I will get you later.” Id.

Plaintiff alleges the crisis watch cell was unsanitary. Plaintiff states that the

cell was infested with mice, and he “fought [the mice] all night just not to get

bitten.” Id. at p. 8. Plaintiff states that the water in the sinks and toilet was not clear,

the blanket and mattress were dirty, and there was no toilet tissue, soap, or a cup

for water. Plaintiff alleges the air conditioner was on, and he was completely

naked. Plaintiff alleges he called for a correctional officer for hours until Saldana

arrived. Plaintiff allegedly asked Salanda for cleaning supplies and toilet tissue

and to use the washroom, but Saldana denied the requests.

Plaintiff alleges Dr. Fairless was not working during the weekend, and

Plaintiff remained confined to the crisis watch cell for three days, from

approximately August 29-31, 2025. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Fairless did not return to

examine him during the crisis watch.

After Plaintiff was released from crisis watch, he was placed back in

segregation. Saldana allegedly told Plaintiff to request another crisis so he could

see Plaintiff again. Plaintiff alleges this comment made him feel depressed,

disgusted, and violated.

III

First, Plaintiff alleges the Dietary Department was short on protein packs

between August 9-29, 2025. Plaintiff claims Defendant Saldana did not allow him

to choose between the regular diet tray and the Halal diet on August 29, 2025.

These sparse allegations are insufficient to state a constitutional violation against

Saldana.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dr. Fairless placed him on crisis watch on

August 29, 2025, even though Plaintiff informed Dr. Fairless that he was not a

threat to himself or others. Dr. Fairless allegedly forced Plaintiff to undress, even

though Plaintiff informed Dr. Fairless that he is Muslim and it is very

inappropriate for him to be naked in front of others. Dr. Fairless threatened to call

a tactical team if Plaintiff refused to undress. Plaintiff removed his clothing in front

of Saldana. Plaintiff does not allege if he informed Saldana that he is Muslim.

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff claims he was confined to the crisis watch cell for three days from

approximately August 29-31, 2025. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Fairless did not check on

him that weekend. By Plaintiff’s own admission, he was not a threat to himself or

others. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Dr. Fairless. Therefore, Dr. Fairless is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A.

Plaintiff alleges the conditions of his crisis watch cell were unsanitary, that

he informed Saldana about the conditions and asked for cleaning supplies and

toilet tissue, but Saldana refused to take action. “Prison conditions may be harsh

and uncomfortable without violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment.” Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir. 1997)

(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994)). “Prisoners are, however,

entitled to ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Dixon, 114 F.3d at

642 (citing Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoted citations

omitted).

To proceed on a conditions of confinement claim, Plaintiff must establish

both an objective and subjective component. “To satisfy the objective component,

a plaintiff must show that the deprivation alleged is ‘objectively, sufficiently

serious.’ Specifically, the plaintiff must show that ‘the prison official’s act or

omission resulted in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities.” Staggs v. Hollenbeck, 248 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). To establish the subjective component, a plaintiff

must show that a defendant was deliberately indifferent, “that the official knew

about the risk of harm, had the ability to prevent the harm, and failed to do so.”

Williams v. Schmidt, No. 14-487, 2019 WL 1046167, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 5, 2019)

(citing Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009)). The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the conditions of the crisis watch cell on or about

August 29-31, 2025, are sufficient to proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions

of confinement claim against Defendant Saldana.

Plaintiff claims Saldana threatened to “get [him]” and commented that he

hoped Plaintiff would declare another crisis. (Doc. 11 at p. 8). “Verbal harassment

generally does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, though some

harassment may be serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”

Boston v. Brown, No. 25-CV-1525-DWD, 2025 WL 2377992, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 15,

2025) (citing Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 358 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding that verbal

sexual harassment, accompanied by suggestive gestures, that created a risk both

from the harasser and fellow inmates, was sufficient to proceed beyond initial

review)). “[M]ost verbal harassment by jail or prison guards does not rise to the

level of cruel and unusual punishment.” Beal, 803 F.3d at 358; see also Smith v.

Myers, No. 118CV02255TWPDLP, 2018 WL 3631285, at *1 (S.D. Ind. July 30, 2018)

(“[A]lthough indefensible and unprofessional, isolated verbal abuse, harassment,

and unprofessional conduct do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation for

which relief may be granted in a civil rights case.”) (citing DeWalt v. Carter, 224

F.3d 607, 612 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “The constitution does not require prison staff to

have ‘genteel language and good manners.’” Terrell v. Dodge Corr. Inst., No. 21-CV-

50-JDP, 2021 WL 1546090, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2021) (quoting Lisle v. Welborn,

933 F.3d 705, 719 (7th Cir. 2019)). Although the comments were unprofessional,

Saldana’s isolated insults do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

Finally, Plaintiff named Danville Correctional Center Mental Health

Department as a Defendant. A correctional center is not a “person” amenable to

suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either

a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under §

1983.”). Furthermore, Danville Correctional Center, as a State agency, enjoys

Eleventh Amendment immunity in a suit for money damages. Wynn v. Southward,

251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). Danville Correctional Center Mental Health

Department is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) According to the Court's Merit Review of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case shall proceed on an Eighth

Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Defendant Saldana based on

the alleged conditions of Plaintiff's crisis watch cell on or about August 29-31, 2025.

Additional claims shall not be included in the case above, except in the Court's

discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15.

2) Defendant Danville Correctional Center Mental Health Department

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants Esteves and Dr. Fairless are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk is

directed to TERMINATE Defendants Esteves and Fairless.

3) This case is now in the process of service. The Court advises Plaintiff

to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant before filing any motions to give

Defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed

before Defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as

premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time unless

otherwise directed by the Court.

4) The Court will attempt service on Defendant by mailing a waiver of

service. If 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 Defendant and will require

Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(d)(2).

5) Defendant shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the Clerk

sends the waiver of service. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer

should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and

subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. In

general, an answer sets forth Defendant’s position. The Court does not rule on the

merits of those positions unless and until Defendant files a motion. Therefore, no

response to the answer is necessary or will be considered. If Defendant has not

filed an answer 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 a scheduling order setting discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines.

6) If Defendant no longer works at the address Plaintiff provided, the

entity for whom Defendant worked while at that address shall submit to the Clerk

Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, Defendant’s forwarding

address. This information shall be used only for effectuating service.

Documentation of Defendant’s forwarding address shall be retained only by the

Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.

7) This District uses electronic filing, which means that after Defendant’s

counsel has filed an appearance, Defendant’s counsel will automatically receive

electronic notice of any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk.

Plaintiff does not need to mail to Defendant’s counsel copies of motions and other

documents that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to

discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not filed

with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly

to Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance and

the Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process

in more detail.

8) Counsel for Defendant is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at

Plaintiff’s place of confinement. Counsel for Defendant shall arrange the time for

the deposition.

9) Plaintiff shall immediately inform the Court, in writing, of any change

in his 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.

10) Plaintiff shall be provided a copy of all pertinent medical records

upon request.

11) Within 10 days of receiving from defense counsel an authorization to

release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization

to defense counsel. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective

order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

12) The Clerk is directed to set an internal court deadline 60 days from

the entry of this Order for the Court to check on the status of service and enter

scheduling deadlines.

It is so ordered.

Entered: September 14, 2026

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. District Judge