Blackburn v. Sec. Staff
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-01713-SPM |
| Parties | BRANDALE BLACKBURN,[1] #M54199 Plaintiff, v. SECURITY STAFF, PHILIP K. ROYSTER, TERRY E. BROOKS, ZACHARY D. FENTON, JOSHUA A SCHOENBECK, ANTHONY D. WILLS, JOHN DOE 1, ANTHONY B. JONES, and DIRECTOR OF IDOC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Brandale Blackburn, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights that occurred while at Menard Correctional Center. The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
After filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion asking to amend paragraphs 53 and 73 of the Complaint, modifying the claims against John Doe 1, and to add the Director of IDOC as a defendant. (Doc. 9). Generally, the Court does not allow piecemeal amendments to a complaint. An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint and renders the original void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). However, as a one-time courtesy, the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint as stated in the motion, and the motion to amend is granted. The Clerk of Court will be directed to add the Director of IDOC as a party to this case. Going forward, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint must stand on its own and include all allegations against all defendants.
Plaintiff alleges the following: On August 25, 2021, while in “group,” Plaintiff requested to speak to a crisis team member. (Doc. 1, p. 4). A mental health staff member, Regelsperger, attempted to do a crisis evaluation of Plaintiff in front of the other inmates in group. Plaintiff asked for the crisis evaluation to be done in private. Regelsperger refused. (Id. at p. 5).
Sergeant Royster and Correctional Officers Brooks and Fenton then arrived at the group room. Plaintiff notified them that he needed a crisis team member and that Regelsperger had not performed a crisis evaluation. (Doc. 1, p. 5). The officers responded that Plaintiff “was going to get his crisis evaluation.” (Id. at p. 6). Royster, Brooks, and Fenton took Plaintiff to North 2, 6 gallery, and they told him he was going back to his cell. They then began pushing him. (Id.). Plaintiff again stated he needed a crisis team member, and Royster, Brooks, and Fenton started hitting and kicking him. Plaintiff was then slammed to the floor. (Id. at p. 7). Even though Plaintiff was shackled and not resisting, the officers yelled, “Stopped resisting!” (Id. at p. 8). Royster next fired pepper balls with a “pava launcher” at Plaintiff's back and legs. (Id.).
Royster, Brooks, and Fenton put a spit mask over Plaintiff's face and began to tighten the mask and choke Plaintiff with their hands. (Doc. 1, p. 9). He was then dragged down and then up the stairs. (Id. at p. 10). The officers took Plaintiff to the infirmary in North 2. (Id. at p. 11). While being taken to North 2, the officers hit him, kneed him, bent his hands and wrists, and tightened his handcuffs. (Id.).
At the infirmary, Plaintiff notified Nurse Engelage that the right side of his face was swollen and bruised, his left wrist and ankle were swollen and bleeding, and that he had bruises on his neck, back, and leg area. (Doc. 1, p. 12). He did not receive a proper medical examination, however, because he had the spit mask on over his face, and he was shackled down and handcuffed. (Id. at p. 13). Plaintiff then saw Draper, a mental health staff member, who placed him on crisis watch. (Id.).
From the infirmary, Plaintiff was taken to a holding tank where Fenton made racial comments towards him, and Royster sprayed him with pepper spray in the face at close range for no reason. (Doc. 1, p. 14-15). Royster, Brooks, and Fenton refused to allow Plaintiff to clean himself and flush his eyes. Plaintiff was then placed in cell 507. (Id. at p. 15).
In the cell, the sink and toilet were not working. Plaintiff told and the gallery officer, Engelage, that he needed his sink and toilet “turned on.” (Doc. 1, p. 15). A few hours later, the hot water was turned on but not the cold water or the toilet. (Id. at p. 16). Plaintiff also informed Engelage and other staff that he would like to speak with a staff member of internal affairs and would like pictures taken of his injuries. No one ever came. (Id.). During second shift, Plaintiff asked the gallery officer to turn on the cold water for the sink and the toilet, and the gallery officer did so. (Id. at p. 17).
On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff was served with a disciplinary ticket for allegedly assaulting staff and disobeying a direct order written by Royster and Brooks. (Doc. 1, p. 17). He had a disciplinary hearing before Adjustment Committee Members Anthony Jones and Joshua Schoenbeck on September 7, 2021. (Id. at p. 18). Jones and Schoenbeck did not call the witnesses Plaintiff had requested. Plaintiff was found guilty without any substantial evidence, and his statement was not included in the Adjustment Committee's final summary. He was sentenced to three months in segregation, three months C-grade status, and three months of visiting restrictions.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants IDOC Director, Warden Anthony Wills, Anthony Jones, and Joshua Schoenbeck violated his rights protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 1, p. 18-19, 20; Doc. 9, p. 1-2). Plaintiff, however, provides no factual allegations suggesting such claim. He does not allege that he was singled out and treated differently from others similarly situated. See Brunson v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 2016); Forgue v. City of Chi., 873 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2017); Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 916 (7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, his equal protection claims are dismissed.
The Court also dismisses all claims against Security Staff. To successfully plead a claim, a plaintiff must make plausible allegations against individuals. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When a plaintiff does nothing but state that a group of people harmed him without providing more, all he has done is establish that there is a “sheer possibility” that someone in that group harmed him. Because Plaintiff does not describe the unknown security staff members or identify particular acts or omissions by any specific individual of that group who violated his constitutional rights, all claims against Security Staff are dismissed without prejudice.
Finally, Regelsperger, Salger, Draper, Nurse Engelage, and Officer Engelage are described in statement of claim but not listed in the case caption. When parties are not listed in the case caption, the Court will not treat them as defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 51-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (). Accordingly, any claims Plaintiff intended to bring against these individuals are also dismissed without prejudice.
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following counts:
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly[2] pleading standard.
Plaintiff's claims against...
To continue reading
Request your trial