Goings v. Baldwin
| Decision Date | 22 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-0489-SMY |
| Parties | FREDRICK GOINGS, M36022 Plaintiff, v. JOHN BALDWIN, DONALD STOLWORTHY, KIM BUTLER, BENEFIELD, BIG E, BENNETTE, GALIOTO, ANDREW W. SPILLER, CHARLOTTE MIGET, JOSH SCHOENBECK, TRACY K. LEE, JEANETTE C. HECHT, MICHAEL HOF, AARON RUNGE, ERIN CARTER, ANDREW DILLINGHAM, LANCE PHELPS, BRANDON M. ANTHONY, and UNKNOWN PARTY Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Frederick Goings, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging numerous federal and state claims.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
On October 28, 2014 at approximately 11:10 am, Correctional Officer Benefield, the acting cell-house sergeant, walked through Plaintiff's gallery shouting that his paperwork had been shredded. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Benefield stated that "he better not find out who's been fucking with his shit because if he did he would come back and tear up their cell and burn their fucking house down." (Doc. 1, p. 3). Benefield then proceeded to shakedown Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 1, p. 3). When Plaintiff returned to his cell, he noticed that his legal files had been ransacked and some of the documents destroyed. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Additionally, some of his family contact information was missing. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff then asked Benefield why his cell was shaken down and Benefield responded by threatening Plaintiff and hurling verbal abuse at him at his cell door. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Benefield told Plaintiff "let's see how you like your next fucking cell assignment." (Doc. 1, p. 4). Benefield sent Plaintiff to segregation a few days later, allegedly as part of a scheme to have Plaintiff seriously injured or killed. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff's cell mate in segregation was David Sesson. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that Benefield, Butler and various unnamed other staff knew that Sesson had threatened to kill his next cell mate if he was double-celled. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Sesson began strangling Plaintiff with an extension cord on November 5, 2014.1 (Doc. 1, p. 6). Sesson also bit Plaintiff's fingers.(Doc. 1, p. 6). Another inmate intervened to save Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 6). As Sesson strangled Plaintiff, he told him "I told them not to put anyone in this cell with me." (Doc. 1, p. 6).
After the incident, Plaintiff submitted a request to the gallery officer to be removed from the cell, but the request was ignored for days. He also put in sick call slips that were ignored. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff was not seen by a physician until December 3 or 4, 2014. Sesson was finally removed from Plaintiff's cell approximately four days after the attack. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He went on to kill his next cell mate, Bernard Simmons. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff alleges that when he finally received health care for the strangulation incident, Dr. Gulioto recorded the following notations in his medical records: 1) can't control movements; 2) family trying to kill me. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Plaintiff believes these are inaccurate statements and distort what he said to Gulioto. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he reported fears that the prison staff was trying harm him through their control of movement passes and that he believed the that his victim's family, not his own, was trying to kill him. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Benefield also spread a rumor about Plaintiff that Plaintiff had dropped a kite on some other inmates about an incident that Plaintiff knew nothing about. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff requested protective custody status on December 1, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Butler denied it on January 23, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Plaintiff was placed in segregation on January 25, 2015, but was never issued a disciplinary ticket or informed why he went to segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 8). During that time, he received an anonymous death threat which he turned over to Correctional Officer Englelade. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff then submitted another request for protective custody on February 25, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 9). The request was denied on March 2, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff appealed the request to the ARB and a video hearing was held with Bennette on April 23, 2015.(Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff's request for protective custody was denied on May 5, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 9). The denial was signed by Bennette, and the then acting IDOC Director Donald Stolworthy. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff further alleges that the denial contained misrepresentations and lies. (Doc. 1, p. 9). For example, the report found that Plaintiff stated that inmates try to harm him because he tells things when he sees them. (Doc. 1, p. 9). The report also stated that Engelade denied that Plaintiff gave him an anonymous note threatening his life. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff alleges that Engelade told Plaintiff in the presence of Jones that he gave the note to Internal Affairs. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff was subjected to a strip search. (Doc. 1, p. 10). As part of the strip search, Plaintiff had to bend over and spread his butt cheeks. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff was then interviewed by internal affairs. (Doc. 1, p. 11). He was then strip searched again by Andrew Spiller. (Doc. 1, p. 11). The Correctional Officer conducting the search "looked at Plaintiff with an offensive smirk, smiled, and said thank you." (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff alleges that the same officers strip searched him again moments later. (Doc. 1, p. 12). When Plaintiff returned to his cell, his property was in disarray and he was told that he was being transferred to segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 12). No one told Plaintiff why he was being sent to segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
When Plaintiff arrived in the segregation unit in the North II cell house, a guard named Big E grabbed Plaintiff by the back of the neck and squeezed while shoving Plaintiff's face and forehead into the brick wall of the building. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Plaintiff was strip searched again by Big E in front of six other officers. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
Plaintiff was then taken to Cell 503, which had poor ventilation, feces on the walls and smelled of urine. (Doc. 1, p. 13). It also had a rusted bed and door and lacked a power outlet.(Doc. 1, p. 13). The light in cell 503 stayed on for 24 hours a day and Plaintiff could not sleep for three days because of it. (Doc. 1, p. 14). While in that cell, Plaintiff was deprived of his blood pressure medication and believes that he suffered a stroke as a result of the denial. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Plaintiff was also denied medical care for the injuries inflicted by Big E. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff was eventually moved to Cell 835, where he stayed for two weeks until he was released back into general population. (Doc. 1, p. 14). He was never issued a disciplinary ticket. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff believes that his sick call slips were ignored in retaliation for his grievance activity. (Doc. 1, p. 14).
Plaintiff is an attorney, although his license to practice law has been suspended during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. He has divided his Complaint into the following claims, which the Court will use in all further proceedings in this case:
To continue reading
Request your trial