Weeks v. Warden
| Decision Date | 07 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15 C 5234,15 C 5234 |
| Parties | ROBERT WEEKS, Plaintiff, v. LESLIE WARDEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Weeks ("Plaintiff") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three employees of Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville")—Sergeant Leslie Warden, Officer Darrel Barry, and Lieutenant Bryan Sullivan ("Defendants")—alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (R. 11, Am. Compl.) Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. (R. 55, Mot.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶¶ 1, 9-10.)1 He has a history of mental health issues and has been diagnosed as having "polysubstance dependence" with "antisocial features," among otherimpairments, and has at times had auditory hallucinations.2 He takes a number of medications for these issues. (See R. 72, Mental Health Progress Notes 12-14; R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 13-16.) In February 2013, Plaintiff was transferred from Pontiac Correctional Facility to Stateville, where he was to be housed in the segregation unit, also known as "F-House." (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶¶ 9-10.) When an inmate is transferred into the segregation unit, they are evaluated by a board of prison officials to determine whether they are eligible to have a cellmate, and an "Offender Special Placement Double Cell Assessment" form is completed for each inmate. (Id. ¶ 11.)3 The forms for each inmate are kept in a binder for lieutenants, majors, and shift commanders to refer to when determining the proper cell placement for inmates who are assigned to the unit. (Id.) An assessment was completed for Plaintiff upon his transfer to Stateville's segregation unit, and it was determined that he was eligible to be placed in a cell with another inmate. (Id. ¶ 12.) This determination was made by amember of the medical staff, a member of the mental health staff, and a member of the internal affairs staff. (R. 56-3, Double-Cell Assessment at 3; R. 72, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 54.) The prison's chief administrative officer, the warden, then made the final decision to approve Plaintiff for double-celling. (R. 56-3, Double-Cell Assessment at 3; R. 72, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 55.)
Between February 2013 and September 2013, Plaintiff had six different cellmates during portions of his time in segregation. (R. 56-3, Double-Cell Assessment at 4; R. 72, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 48-49.) As of September 22, 2013, however, he did not have a cellmate. (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 10.) At approximately 6:30 a.m. that morning, inmate LaDarryl House was brought to the segregation unit due to an incident that occurred in another cell block and was assigned to the same cell as Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 13; R. 72, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 22.) Officer Barry, Sergeant Warden, and Lieutenant Sullivan were among the correctional officers on duty in F-House that day. (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶¶ 2-4.) The decision to house an inmate in a cell with another inmate is made by a lieutenant, major, placement committee, or other high-ranking official. (Id. ¶ 14.) Sergeants and correctional officers do not have authority to determine whether an inmate can have a cellmate or which cell an inmate is placed in. (Id.) The decision to assign House to Plaintiff's cell was made by the shift commander, a non-party. (R. 72, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 21, 36.) Lieutenant Sullivan also personally checked the double-cell binder before taking House to Plaintiff's cell. (Id. at 47.) The binder reflected that Plaintiff was approved for double-celling and was eligible to have a cellmate. (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 15.)
According to Plaintiff, Officer Barry came to his cell and told him that he was "getting a cellie." (R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 47.) Plaintiff responded by telling him that he was "single man status per orders of mental health and internal affairs." (Id.) Officer Barry then left and went "back by the office." (Id. at 52.) A short time later Sergeant Warden arrived with House and toldPlaintiff that he would be "getting a cellie." (Id.) Plaintiff told Sergeant Warden, too, that he was "not allowed to have a cellie per orders of mental health and IA," and to "check the computers," but Sergeant Warden instead walked away to take House to the showers. (Id.) A few minutes later Lieutenant Sullivan arrived at Plaintiff's cell and told Plaintiff he was getting a cellmate. (Id.) Plaintiff repeated that he was supposed to be on "single man cell status," to which Lieutenant Sullivan responded that Plaintiff was "recommended and available to have a cellie." (Id. at 56.) Plaintiff told Lieutenant Sullivan to "check the computer," at which point Lieutenant Sullivan allegedly responded that he didn't "give a damn" and walked away. (Id.)
After House finished his shower, Sergeant Warden brought him back to Plaintiff's cell.4 (Id. at 48, 56.) According to Plaintiff, he was sitting on the top bunk reading when House walked into his cell and said to him, "Whatcha going to do?" (Id. at 48-49.) Plaintiff did not know House and had never seen him before that day. (Id. at 58.) Plaintiff responded, and jumped down from his bunk. (Id. at 49.) At that point House "threw a swing" at Plaintiff, so Plaintiff "grabbed him" and "[s]lammed him up against the wall." (Id. at 61.) He then "held [House] against the wall" until Sergeant Warden came into the cell and deployed a one-second burst of pepper spray.5 (Id. at 62-63; R. 70, Pl.'sResp. to Facts ¶¶ 18, 24.)6 The parties dispute whether Sergeant Warden gave the inmates an order to stop fighting before deploying the pepper spray. After the pepper spray was deployed, Plaintiff let House go because, in his words, "the mace overtook me [and] I couldn't see." (R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 63.) Once Plaintiff released House, both inmates were placed in restraints and Sergeant Warden took Plaintiff to the showers to wash off the pepper spray. (Id. at 64-65; R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶¶ 23-24.) While Plaintiff was in the shower, a medical technician came to wash the spray from his eyes. (R. 70, P.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 21.)
The same day as this altercation, Sergeant Warden and Lieutenant Sullivan completed an "incident report" stating:
[O]n the above date and approximate time I/M Weeks and I/M House (S06245) were observed fighting in Cell F-130. Both inmates were given several direct orders to stop [f]ighting, they failed to comply. A one second burst of OC was used to defuse the fight. Once the fight was defused both inmates were cuffed-up, given showers and seen by med-tech Josephine.
(Id. ¶ 23.) On September 28, 2013, Plaintiff was served with a disciplinary report completed by Sergeant Warden, which stated:
[O]n the above date and approx time this R/Sgt. observed I/M Weeks (N22850) attack I/M House (S06245) immediately after I/M House was secured in Cell F-130. Both inmates were given several direct orders to stop fighting. They refused to comply causing a one second burst of OC (pepper spray) to be deployed to defuse the situation. Both inmates were cuffed taken to shower and given medical treatment by med tech[.]
(Id. ¶ 24.) A disciplinary board found Plaintiff guilty of three offenses: "Assaulting Any Person," "Fighting," and "Disobeying a Direct Order." (Id. ¶ 25.) As the basis for its decision, the board wrote, "Per unit F double cell form Weeks N22850 is cleared to have a cellmate." (Id. ¶ 26.) As a result of these infractions, Plaintiff lost certain privileges and was required to serve additional time in segregation. (R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 70.)
A few weeks after this incident, Plaintiff was transferred to another correctional facility. (Id. at 73; R. 56-5, Movement History at 2.) He subsequently filed a grievance against Defendants complaining that they had put House in his cell when he was not supposed to have a cellmate. (R. 56-1, Grievance Form at 14; R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 27.) IDOC's administrative review board denied the grievance stating, "Cell reviews are conducted prior to placement by review board, C/O's have no control over placement." (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 27.)
Plaintiff admits that he did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of his altercation with House, other than that House "nicked [him] in the nose" when trying to punch him. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff explained that he "moved [his] head away before [House] could really connect the punch." (R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 61.) Plaintiff did not need any medical care as a result of this altercation. (R. 70, Pl.'s Resp. to Facts ¶ 21.) He admits that he received medical treatment for the pepper spray in the form of a shower and assistance from the medical technician in washing his eyes. (Id.) Once he took a shower he no longer had any problems seeing, but he continued to have some irritation on his skin, which went away after a few days. (R. 56-2, Pl. Dep. Tr. at 72.)
In June 2015, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional claims against Defendants. (R. 1, Compl.) After various amendments to thecomplaint, Plaintiff asserts three claims: (1) Defendants failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they placed House in his cell notwithstanding his single cell status, causing him to be attacked by this inmate; (2) Sergeant Warden used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment when the sergeant deployed pepper spray without an adequate justification; and (3) Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by placing House in his cell and spraying him with pepper spray in retaliation...
To continue reading
Request your trial