Donelson v. Atchison
| Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-1311-SMY |
| Parties | CHARLES DONELSON, # R-02279, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ATCHISON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac"), where he is serving a 44-year sentence for murder, and lesser sentences for two other offenses. He brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming numerous violations of his constitutional rights by more than 20 named individual Defendants, as well as by the City of Chester, Illinois, and ten unknown (John Doe) Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. §794 (Doc. 1, p. 7). All of the incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred while he was confined at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard").
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
The lengthy complaint raises a laundry list of numerous claims, including: Plaintiff was not allowed to access the yard for exercise for an extended period of time; prison guards retaliated against him for making complaints and filing grievances; he was subjected to excessive force; he was housed in unsanitary cells; he was denied medical treatment; his legal documents were mishandled; his food trays were tampered with; and his grievances were not properly addressed.
Plaintiff claims that in September 2012, then-Warden Defendant Atchison implemented a policy to identify inmates designated as "staff assaulters" by placing black stripes on their clothing1 (Doc. 1, p. 17). Plaintiff was classified as a "staff assaulter" as well as a sexual predator. He disputes these labels and the application of the policy. Prior to this new policy and designation, Plaintiff had been housed in Menard's "North 2" housing area, and he had access to the outdoor yard for exercise.
Plaintiff complained to Defendants Saurwein2 and Holton about having to wear the black stripes, which he believed made him a target for harassment by staff. Defendants Kemper, Baker, Smith, McMillon, Hood, Helmann, Whitoff, Pelker,3 Holton, and Cartwright tried to goad him into hitting them, which would have led to disciplinary action against Plaintiff (Doc. 1, pp. 18-19). On one occasion (November 2, 2012, discussed further below), an encounter betweenPlaintiff and Defendant Kemper resulted in a disciplinary ticket.
From September 21, 2012, to April 2013, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied access to recreation in the yard. Although Plaintiff's explanation for the denial is not entirely clear, the reasons had to do with his housing assignment and the staff-assaulter designation, as well as rules that prohibited general-population inmates (of which Plaintiff was one) from being placed on the yard at the same time as inmates who were in disciplinary segregation. Lockdowns apparently also led to Plaintiff being confined to his cell. Defendant Holton refused to allow his staff to take Plaintiff to the designated yard for staff-assaulters ("16 Box"),4 which was located on the other side of the facility from where Plaintiff was housed (Doc. 1, p. 18). Plaintiff filed a grievance over the incident, and the response stated he should be taken to 16 Box. He showed the response to Defendants Baker, McMillon, Hood, Pelker, Helmann, and Holton, but Holton refused to follow it. Defendant Cartwright also refused to let Plaintiff go to the yard.
On one occasion, Plaintiff was taken to the segregation lockdown yard. He complains that while there, he had no access to the phone, weights, or other unspecified privileges that he had enjoyed in the general population yard. At some point, the grievance officer stated that Plaintiff could go to the gym (which is also the dining hall). However, Plaintiff claims that staff assaulters do not get gym, so it is unclear whether he ever went there (Doc. 1, p. 20). Plaintiff states that he was denied access to yard exercise for approximately 210 days in all (Doc. 1, p. 27). He suggests that his cell was too small for him to exercise while confined there (Doc. 1, p. 21). He developed stomach problems, heartburn, and foot problems (Doc. 1, p. 20), as well as extreme stress, spasms, and weight gain (Doc. 1, p. 27).
On November 3, 2012, while the prison was on lockdown, Plaintiff was in handcuffs onhis way to the shower when Defendant Kemper reached out and slapped at Plaintiff's face5 (Doc. 1, p. 19). After he and the other inmates were done showering and back in handcuffs, Plaintiff "was snatched and grab[bed] yanking [Plaintiff's] arm in handcuff[s]" Id. Kemper told Plaintiff he was going to the "hole" for looking at him the way he did. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Kemper wrote a false disciplinary report over this encounter as retaliation (Doc. 1, p. 20).
Plaintiff received three months in segregation as a result of Defendant Kemper's report. He was placed in a cell on 4 Gallery that was infested with black mold, and had moldy water running out of the walls (Doc. 1, pp. 19-20). All staff in North 2 knew about the bad cell conditions and about Plaintiff's complaints over being denied yard exercise, so they knowingly put him in the moldy cell to retaliate against him for his grievances. The cell conditions caused him to get sick and have trouble breathing. In addition, his legal mail and grievances "disappeared" (Doc. 1, p. 20).
On November 10, 2012, Defendants Atchison and Harrington came to Plaintiff's cell (Number 445), and he showed them the bad conditions (Doc. 1, pp. 20, 26). However, they did nothing about the mold or about Plaintiff's complaint that he had been falsely accused of the disciplinary infraction. They advised him to file a grievance. Later, Defendant Butler walked by and looked at the black mold at Plaintiff's request; she too left without doing anything (Doc. 1, p. 26).
When Plaintiff was released from segregation in February 2013, he was moved to North 2, 7 Gallery, and placed in a cell that lacked hot water and had mildew. Defendant Baker refused to do anything about these problems (Doc. 1, p. 21). Plaintiff filed grievances over the conditions and staff conduct, and in retaliation, unnamed staff would tamper with his food trays,so that food portions were missing when he received them. Defendant Phoenix refused to process Plaintiff's grievances. Defendant Cartwright refused to move Plaintiff to a different gallery. He continued to get sick with breathing and stomach issues and foot pain, because of the lockdown and lack of exercise, and from being kept in the unhealthy cell (Doc. 1, p. 22).
Early in the morning of February 25, 2013, Plaintiff was preparing for a court date and packed up his legal documents to take with him. However, he was told that he could not take all the items along. Defendant Holder was called in. He ordered Plaintiff to return half of the property to his cell under his escort (Doc. 1, pp. 22-23). Plaintiff was in shackles, carrying his bags back to his cell, and when they arrived at an area where there were no surveillance cameras, Defendant Holder stepped on the shackle to trip Plaintiff. He then smacked and hit Plaintiff, bruising his face, and injuring his ear and neck. Other officers were present but did nothing to stop the assault.
After returning from the court date, Plaintiff sought protective custody but was denied. As a result of his complaints, Plaintiff was summoned to meet with Defendants Anthony and Spiller (intelligence or internal affairs officers) about Defendant Holder's assault. However, their approach caused Plaintiff to feel intimidated and threatened, fearing another attack (Doc. 1, p. 24).
On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff was moved back to 7 Gallery, Cell 716. He complained to Defendant Baker that his mattress was contaminated with feces, and the cell was dirty and contaminated with urine. Defendant Baker told Plaintiff he didn't care, and did nothing. Plaintiff filed a grievance. Defendant Baker later made a reference to Plaintiff's earlier grievances over the staff-assaulter designation, leading Plaintiff to believe that Defendant Baker's failure to act was in retaliation for that earlier grievance activity (Doc. 1, p. 25).
Plaintiff claims that numerous Menard officials retaliated against him for complaining about the conditions in several cells where he was housed. Defendant Hood prevented Plaintiff from keeping a medical appointment by signing Plaintiff's name on his call pass to indicate Plaintiff had refused the visit (Doc. 1, p. 25). However, Plaintiff had not refused. Defendants Hood, Baker, Creason, Smith, McMillon, and Shearing "harassed" Plaintiff in retaliation for his complaints about the cells in North 2 (Doc. 1, p. 26). Plaintiff's mail was misplaced. He was housed in six different cells (716, 722, 749, 445, 429, and 324), some or all of which had black mold, a broken sink, and/or water coming out of the toilet. Id.
Plaintiff sought medical care for what he thought was an ear infection, and then a tonsil infection due to the bad cell conditions. He saw Defendants Shearing and Nwaobasi, but neither physician gave him any treatment (Doc. 1, p. 26).6 Plaintiff goes on to assert...
To continue reading
Request your trial