Sangathit v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 14 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-00860-JHL |
| Parties | PHONAKONE SANGATHIT, #R43542, Plaintiff, v. FRANK LAWRENCE, JONES, RESSE, KRAMER, MCCARTHY, EMALDI, ROB JEFFREYS, SIDDIQUI, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #4, GEE, and RATAKE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
1
Plaintiff Phonakone Sangathit, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Sangathit alleges defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in retaliation for filing a grievance following the restriction of his visitation rights. He requests money damages and injunctive relief.
The complaint is now before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 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).
Sangathit makes the following allegations in the complaint (Dkt. 1): Sangathit was leaving the recreation yard when he was grabbed from the line by Internal Affairs Officers Resse, Kramer, McCarthy, and Gee. They handcuffed him and took him to the West House shower where they strip searched him and told him to bend over and spread his buttocks, while making derogatory sexual, homosexual, and racial comments. When Sangathit asked why this was being done to him, McCarthy said that "he had pissed off the wrong people," and that he will now "think twice about who you write a grievance on." (Id. at 7.) Sangathit continued to be handcuffed for over two hours while his cell was searched.
Resse, Kramer, McCarthy, and Gee then took Sangathit to the health care unit where he was placed in a suicide/strip cell with no running water or working toilet. The cell had not been cleaned; there was food, feces, vomit, and blood on the floor and walls; and the lights remained on twenty-four hours a day. He asked again why he was being placed under investigation and on watch and he was told "because they can do it." (Id. at 8.) After he submitted to a drug test and gave a urine sample, Resse, Kramer, McCarthy, and Gee held him down and ordered medical staff John Doe #1 to conduct a rectal cavity search against Sangathit's will. John Doe #1 complied and searched Sangathit's rectal cavity, following Menard medical director Dr. Siddiqui and Wexford's unwritten policy of following the orders of non-medical personnel regarding medical care and treatment of inmates. Sangathit announced several times that he did not consent to the search. Following the search, he had rectal bleeding and asked to be examined by a doctor but was denied. He was left handcuffed again for another two hours. John Doe #2 told Sangathit that he was supposed to uncuff Sangathit but was going to leave him cuffed so that he understood who is in charge.
Sangathit was kept in the freezing cold suicide cell from Friday until Monday. During that time, he asked for the lights to be turned off so that he could sleep but was told that on Major Ratake and Emaldi's orders the lights were to be left on because of something that he had done to the warden. During this time, because there was not a working toilet in the cell, he was forced to urinate in a jar and defecate in a bucket, unable to wash his hands. He was denied clean clothes, toilet paper, soap, tooth brush, and other hygiene items. From being in the dirty cell, he developed a rash on his back, buttocks, and legs. He was given hydrocortisone cream to treat the rash, but when he tried to see a doctor and receive more cream, he was not called to sick call, leaving the rash untreated.
On Monday, Sangathit was taken to have his lower body x-rayed, but the results showed there was no object hidden internally. He was written a ticket and placed under investigation. Sangathit was then sent to segregation where he was held in another dirty cell with a wet mattress that smelled of urine. He informed defendants about his cell conditions and asked for cleaning supplies and a different mattress but was denied.
Sangathit claims that the unconstitutional treatment was done in retaliation for a grievance he wrote about Assistant Warden of Operations Jones who, without reason, had terminated his visitation rights. Sangathit also states that he later discovered that John Doe #3 claimed that he witnessed Sangathit putting something in his rectum.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the court designates the following claims:
The parties shall use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this court. Any claim that is mentioned in the complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under Twombly.2
The intentional use of excessive force by prison guards against an inmate without penological justification constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and is actionable under Section 1983. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010) (per curiam). An inmate must show that an assault occurred and that "it was carried out 'maliciously and sadistically' rather than as part of 'a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.' " Id. at 40 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992)). Even security measures as ordinary as handcuffs can still be used in ways that violate the constitution. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738, 122 S. Ct. 2508 (2002); Ajala v. Tom, 658 F. App'x 805, 806-07 (7th Cir. 2016). Several factors are relevant to this determination, including the need for force, the amount applied, the threat a guard reasonably perceived, the effort made to temper the severity of the force used, and the extent of the injury caused to the prisoner. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7; Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 504 (7th Cir. 2004).
Sangathit alleges that without a penological reason Resse, Kramer, McCarthy, and Gee used excessive force against him when they kept him handcuffed for over two hours and physically forced him to submit to a rectal cavity search. Furthermore, he claims that John Doe #2 unnecessarily kept him in handcuffs for over two hours following the search. These claims are sufficient to proceed with an excessive force claim against Resse, Kramer, McCarthy, Gee, and John Doe #2.
A strip search or rectal cavity search constitutes a claim for cruel and unusual punishment if the search "was...
To continue reading
Request your trial