Garcia v. Funk
| Decision Date | 29 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-1001-RJD |
| Parties | CARLOS H. GARCIA, #M41479, Plaintiff, v. SANDRA FUNK, MIKE FUNK, JEFFREY MOLENHOUR, and NICK LAMB, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 55). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 66). As explained further, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff is an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). He filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"). Following a threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, Plaintiff's case proceeded on the following claims:
Defendants filed the instant motion, contending there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights and summary judgment should be granted in their favor.
The following facts are taken from the record and presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the non-moving party. All reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor.
Plaintiff is a member of the LGBTQ community (Doc. 55-1, p. 8). On March 11, 2015 he transferred from Pinckneyville Correctional Center to Lawrence Correctional Center (Doc. 55-2, p. 2). At Pinckneyville, a member of the Latin Folks (a security threat group, or "STG") wanted Plaintiff to stab a member of the Kings, another STG (Doc. 55-1, p. 4; Doc. 66, p. 13). Plaintiff refused and asked to be placed in protective custody (Id. pp. 4, 5). Internal Affairs transferred Plaintiff to Lawrence (Id.). Within a few days of arriving at Lawrence, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Molenhour (Id. p. 5). Plaintiff asked to be placed in protective custody (Id.). Molenhour replied, "Well, no one has ever jumped on you and if anybody does, let us know" (Id.). Plaintiff also told Molenhour that he [Plaintiff] is gay (Id. p. 8).
Approximately eighteen months later, Plaintiff told Molenhour that a member of the Latin Folks had transferred from Pinckneyville to Lawrence (Id. p. 5). Plaintiff told Molenhour "he's going to see me and he is going to tell all of the Latin Folks, and it's going to be the same thing again" (Id.). Plaintiff again asked Molenhour to be placed in protective custody (Id. p. 9).Plaintiff believes that Molenhour arranged for the Latin Folks member to be moved to another area of the prison, but Plaintiff still saw the Latin Folks member when moving to and from school and healthcare (Id. p. 5).
Plaintiff's counseling summary reflects that Plaintiff's brother called Lawrence and spoke with an administrative assistant on July 24, 2017 (Doc. 66, p. 19). The administrative assistant noted that Plaintiff's brother expressed concern for Plaintiff and "information was submitted to Mental Health and Executive Staff" (Id.).
On July 29, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a grievance to Counselor Garrett at Lawrence (Doc. 55-1, p. 6). Within the grievance, Plaintiff told Counselor Garrett "everything that happened at Pinckneyville with the Latin Folks....he said he was going to talk to IA, and IA told him to tell me that I was going to get transferred, to not worry about it" (Id.). Plaintiff did not mention his sexuality in the July 29, 2017 grievance (Doc. 66, pp. 15-16). Plaintiff's cumulative counseling summary contains an entry from Counselor Garrett dated July 31, 2017 in which he states he forwarded two emergency grievances written by Plaintiff to the Warden at Lawrence (Id. p. 17). Plaintiff tried to talk to Warden Nick Lamb one day while Lamb was touring the prison, but Lamb said "he had to go" (Id. p. 10).
Plaintiff became cellmates with Samer Hernandez at the beginning of August 2017 (Doc. 55-1, pp. 3, 4). Immediately before Hernandez became his cellmate, Plaintiff was in a one-man cell (Id. p. 4). A lieutenant (who knew about Plaintiff's history with the Latin Folks and Kings) told Plaintiff that he was going to have a cellmate (Id.). Plaintiff refused to move (Id.). Prison guards handcuffed him and made him move to the cell with Hernandez (Id.). Hernandez was a member of the Latin Folks (Id. p. 3). Hernandez immediately began asking Plaintiff about his background and history within the IDOC (Id. p. 4). Plaintiff told Hernandez that he was fromTexas and this was his first "bid" (meaning his first time in prison) (Id.).
Plaintiff and Hernandez had no altercations until August 19, 2017, when Hernandez received a written message from another member of the Latin Folks (Id. pp. 3, 4; Doc. 66, p. 6). Later that day, Hernandez raped Plaintiff (Id. p. 3). Immediately before raping Plaintiff, Hernandez accused Plaintiff of snitching on members of the Latin Folks (Id.). After the rape, Plaintiff activated the "panic button" in his cell (Id. p. 6). Hernandez told Plaintiff "you better not [say anything] because we are still going to get you" (Id. p. 3). No one responded to Plaintiff's panic alert (Id. p. 6). Eventually, a correctional officer walked by Plaintiff's cell and Plaintiff told the officer he wanted to go on suicide watch (Id. p. 6).
Prison staff then handcuffed Plaintiff and took him to healthcare (Id. p. 7). Defendant Molenhour spoke to Plaintiff and "took down what happened" (Id.). Prison staff transported Plaintiff to a local hospital where he was examined (Id.). Plaintiff returned to Lawrence in the early morning hours of August 20, 2017 (Id.). He told a mental health care worker that he wanted to be placed in protective custody (Id.). For the next three days, Plaintiff was on suicide watch and refused to eat (Id. p. 10). He thought the prison staff was going to try to poison him (Id. p. 11). Plaintiff transferred to Menard Correctional Center on August 23, 2017 (Doc. 55-2, p. 1; Doc. 55-1, p.6).
Plaintiff has never had any type of interaction with Defendant Mike Funk (Id. p. 9). Plaintiff received a letter from the John Howard Association stating that Mike Funk was the PREA ("Prison Rape Elimination Act") coordinator at Lawrence in 2017 (Doc. 66, p. 33). However, Mike Funk presented a declaration to the Court that states he was the Manager of the Employment Service Division for IDOC from June 2016-December 2018 (Doc. 55-7). He was the Agency PREA Coordinator from November 2015-May 2016 (Id.).
Sandra Funk was the Deputy Chief of Operations for IDOC from February 2017-October 2017 (Doc. 55-3). Prior to that role, she was the Deputy Director of the Central Region for IDOC (Id.). She avers that "the facility where an offender is housed is responsible for reviewing an offender's request for placement in protective custody" and that she "did not review any requests for [Plaintiff] regarding placement or requests to be placed in protective custody" (Id.). She also avers that "all offenders are reviewed for safety and security risk when they arrive IDOC (sic) by the facility in which they will be housed at" (Id.).
Jeffrey Molenhour was an Internal Affairs Investigator at Lawrence in 2017 (Doc. 55-6). Prior to holding that position, he was an Adjustment Committee Officer (Id.). He avers that (Id.).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at248). In determining a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Michael Funk, Molenhour, and Lamb retaliated against Plaintiff for being openly gay by placing him in dangerous housing situations and/or denying him protective custody both before and after he was raped. To establish that his First Amendment rights were violated, Plaintiff must show that "(1) he engaged in activity protected by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial