Sultan v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 02 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-cv-00418-NJR |
| Parties | CHARLES SULTAN, #A-93755, Plaintiff, v. S. DUNCAN, LT. AUSTIN, C/O KELLER, C/O MAXLEY, R. WEAVER, C/O GIPSON, C/O SELABY, C. JENNING, J. FREEMAN, C/O COOPER, RN POTS, W. BAYLER, B.W. VAUGHN, LT. BYFORD, OFFICER JOHSON, C/O E. CLARY, LT. HARRIS, LT. DALLIS, LT. WHEELER, OFFICER HOUGH, I/A HANCE, I/A MOLENHOUR, LPN WELTY, I/M R. ESTHER, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Charles Sultan. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center ("Western Illinois"). He brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence") in 2015. Id.
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that officials at Lawrence failed to protect him from an assault by his mentally ill cellmate on September 13, 2015. (Doc. 11, pp. 9-17). He now sues the prison officials for conspiring to violate his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 11, pp. 18-25, 27-32). He also asserts a claim against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois state law. (Doc. 11, p. 26). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 11, pp. 33-34).
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) before the Court screened the original Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original, rendering it void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The First Amended Complaint is now subject to preliminary review 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). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility." Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). As explained below, the amended complaint survives preliminary review under this standard.
According to the First Amended Complaint, Lawrence officials routinely deny inmates protective custody. (Doc. 11, pp. 9-17). Officials allegedly refuse to grant requests for protective custody until an inmate suffers physical harm or receives a disciplinary ticket. Id. Plaintiff claims that officials ignore all requests for protection until they "see blood," and his claims in this case arise from one such incident. Id.
On or around July 28, 2015, Officer Johnson informed Plaintiff that he was being released from investigative segregation.1 (Doc. 11, p. 11). Plaintiff repeatedly refused placement in the general population because he felt that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id. He claims that Orange Crush Tactical Team members planned to hurt him in retaliation for a suit he filed against them. Id. Plaintiff was eventually issued disciplinary tickets for each housing refusal. Id. He pleaded guilty and was punished with segregation, among other things. Id.
Plaintiff was housed in a segregation cell with Inmate Esther, a mentally ill inmate with a known propensity for violence. (Doc. 11, pp. 12-13). Inmate Esther stopped taking his medication. Id. He then began using the prison's ventilation system to rap with two other inmates. Id. The three inmates screamed loudly back and forth at one another from 3:00 p.m. on September 12th until the evening of September 13th. Id. Plaintiff eventually asked Inmate Esther to stop because it was "irritating him" and preventing him from sleeping. Id. Inmate Esther became angry with Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff asked Officers Johnson, Weaver, Maxley, and Gipson to move him to another cell or get him a crisis team because of "a conflict" with his cellmate. (Doc. 11, p. 12). They refused. Id. They also refused Plaintiff's request to speak with a zone lieutenant. Id. Nurse Pots likewise refused to call in a crisis team. Id.
The same evening, Plaintiff was assaulted by his cellmate. (Doc. 11, p. 11). Inmate Esther allegedly placed a jar of cream into a laundry bag and used it to beat Plaintiff until he lost consciousness. Id. As Plaintiff lay on the floor of his cell, Inmate Esther also choked him. (Doc. 11, p. 12). When Plaintiff regained consciousness, Inmate Esther allegedly "pulled out his genital, stating to Plaintiff, 'Now you old ass motherfucker, I am going to make you my Bitch.'" Id.
At the time of this incident, Plaintiff had attempted to summon help from officers in the segregation unit by pressing the emergency call button for more than fifteen hours. (Doc. 11, pp. 13-14). Plaintiff alleges that he notified each of the named segregation unit officers that he was in need of protective custody in the two days leading up to the assault. (Doc. 11, p. 14). Officers regularly appeared at his cell, looked for signs of a fight or blood, and then left when they found none. Id. Plaintiff's request for a cell transfer was not granted until he was "bleeding from the head." (Doc. 11, pp. 13-14).
Plaintiff asserts that many of these officers were also members of the Orange Crush Tactical Team he had already sued. (Doc. 11, p. 20). According to the allegations, the officers knew exactly what would happen to Plaintiff when they placed him in a cell with Inmate Esther. (Doc. 11, p. 13). The inmate was known to be violent. Id. The officers nevertheless forced the two inmates to live together and refused to separate them until Inmate Esther attacked Plaintiff,in order to retaliate against him for refusing placement in the general population and for filing suit against the Orange Crush Tactical Team. (Doc. 11, pp. 9, 13).
At some point, Plaintiff put Warden Duncan and the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") Director "on notice" of his need for protective custody. (Doc. 11, pp. 9, 16). Plaintiff explained that the Orange Crush Tactical Team was "out to hurt him" for filing a lawsuit against them. Id. He requested protection from undisclosed officers who threatened him with violence. Id. He also asked to be separated from his mentally ill cellmate. Id. Plaintiff's request was ignored or denied. (Doc. 11, p. 10).
Plaintiff claims that Officer Clary, Officer Selaby, and Lieutenant Harris continued to retaliate against him in the weeks that followed his attack by Inmate Esther. (Doc. 11, p. 17). As they prepared to take him for his insulin shot on September 28, 2015, Plaintiff complained that his cuffs were too tight and cutting into his wrists. Id. The officers responded by slamming Plaintiff "off the walls." Id. Officer Selaby told Plaintiff that "that's what you have to pay for coming to jail, tight[ ] cuffs, so you don't get away from us." Id. Plaintiff missed his insulin shot during that shift. Id. The officers did this each day, until Plaintiff simply asked to skip his insulin shots when they were working. Id.
Plaintiff is now housed at Western Illinois, where he claims that prison officials continue to retaliate against him and refuse inmate requests for protective custody. (Doc. 11, p. 3). He offers no specific information in support of these assertions. (Doc. 11). He names no defendants from Western Illinois in this suit, and he brings no claims against them. Id.
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Courtdeems it appropriate to organize the claims in the First Amended Complaint into the following enumerated counts:
To continue reading
Request your trial