Young v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 11 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-5718 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY JENKINS and ANDREW FOX, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY JENKINS and ANDREW FOX, Defendants.
No. 18-cv-5718
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
February 11, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Marvin E. Aspen United States District Judge
Defendants Stanley Jenkins and Andrew Fox move for summary judgment on Plaintiff Christopher Young's claims against them. (Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 95); Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 97).)[1] Young opposes the motion. (Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Opp'n”) (Dkt. No. 107).) For the following reasons, we deny Defendants' motion.
BACKGROUND
We take the following facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements, responses, and the materials cited therein. (See Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Defs.' SOF”) (Dkt. No. 96); Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl.'s SOAF”) (Dkt. No. 111); Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SOF”) (Dkt. No. 112); Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Facts (“Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF”) (Dkt. No. 117).)
These facts are not genuinely disputed unless otherwise noted.
The relevant events took place on two days in late 2017: October 27 and November 30. On these dates, Young was an inmate housed at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”); Fox was a correctional sergeant at Stateville; and Jenkins was a correctional lieutenant at Stateville. (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SOF ¶ 3; Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 1; Transcript of Andrew Fox's Deposition (“Fox Dep.”) (Dkt. No. 96-2) at 7:8-8:10.)
I. October 27, 2017
On October 27, 2017, a Stateville correctional officer named Peters came to Young's cell with another inmate, Jessie Adams, who was to be Young's cellmate. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 2.) At that time, Young had a “low bunk permit, ” which is a medical permit stating that an inmate must take the bottom bunk of a cell's bunk bed. (Fox Dep. at 21:17-22, 28:13-21, 42:11-44:8.) Young was provided the low bunk permit because arthritis in his back and neck- which caused excruciating pain that radiated through his back, neck, arms, and legs-prevented him from climbing onto the top bunk. (Transcript of Christopher Young's Deposition (“Young Dep.”) (Dkt. No. 96-1) at 16:7-11, 17:13-20, 18:9-11, 73:5-24, 75:23-76:5.) The parties tell different stories about what happened once Peters and Adams arrived at Young's cell.
Young's Version of Events. According to Young, Peters told him to remove his belongings off of the bottom bunk and move them to the top bunk so Adams could occupy the bottom bunk. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 7; Young Dep. at 14:24-15:14, 18:20-19:7; Exhibit A to Opp'n (“Oct. 28, 2017 Grievance”) (Dkt. No. 108-1) at 2.)[2] Young responded by saying that he could
not move to the top bunk because he had a low bunk permit. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 8; Young Dep. at 14:24-15:16; Oct. 28, 2017 Grievance at 2.) After Peters yelled at Young, Young asked Peters to bring a sergeant or lieutenant over. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶¶ 13, 14; Oct. 28, 2017 Grievance at 2-3.) Fox then came to Young's cell. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 18; Oct. 28, 2017 Grievance at 3; Exhibit B to Opp'n (“Nov. 5, 2017 Grievance”) (Dkt. No. 108-2) at 3.) Fox asked Young to show his low bunk permit, which Young did. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶¶ 18, 19; Oct. 28, 2017 Grievance at 3; Nov. 5, 2017 Grievance at 3.) Fox thereafter told Young that he ran the cell house, not Young, and that Young was either going to the top bunk or to segregation (a unit where inmates who break major departmental rules may be temporarily housed). (Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 20; Young Dep. at 23:10-18; Fox Dep. at 15:12-16:7; Nov. 5, 2017 Grievance at 3.) Young chose to go to segregation rather than climbing onto the top bunk and risk being injured. (Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 22; Young Dep. at 21:23- 22:3, 75:12-18, 78:9-16.) Fox then called Jenkins to Young's cell, and Defendants escorted Young to segregation. (Young Dep. at 22:18-22, 23:10-20.)
Defendants' Version of Events. According to Defendants, the October 27 incident at Young's cell did not involve Young's low bunk permit. (See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 19; Fox Dep. at 58:6-20, 71:11-16.) Rather, Young did not want a cellmate, and when Peters
brought Adams over to be his cellmate, Young blocked his cell door with his personal belongings and refused to let anyone into his cell.[3] (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 10, 11; Fox Dep. at 46:20- 48:22.) Fox came over to Young's cell and ordered him to remove his belongings from the door, but Young refused. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 11; Fox Dep. at 46:20-48:6, 58:6-16, 71:23-72:9.) Fox then handcuffed Young and transported him to the bullpen, which is a holding cell where inmates are placed before they are transported to other units, such as segregation. (Fox Dep. at 59:9-17, 65:4-17, 66:23-67:2.) Once Young was in the bullpen, Fox called Jenkins over, and Jenkins transported Young to segregation. (Id. at 65:12-66:9.)
II. November 30, 2017
On November 30, 2017, Fox observed Young banging on his cell door with his property box. (Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 25.) Fox ordered Young several times to stop banging the box and step away from the front of the cell. (Id.) Young refused and screamed “[F]*** you Sgt. Fox[, ] come up here and make me with your lying b**** a**. I will f*** all y'all up. Take me to seg[, ] I'm ready to go. Y'all b****** gonna take me to seg right now.” (Id.) Defendants came to Young's cell, and Jenkins told Young to “cuff up” because he was going to segregation. (Young Dep. at 32:14-20, 82:20-83:2.) Young placed his hands behind his back and was handcuffed. (Id. at 32:14-21, 37:16-20, 83:3-7; Fox Dep. at 73:17-74:20.)
The parties agree that Defendants thereafter took Young to the bullpen and that the route to the bullpen involved proceeding down at least one flight of stairs. (See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s SOAF ¶ 26; Young Dep. at 82:8-19; Fox Dep. at 74:15-20, 75:20-76:2, 76:21-77:18.) The parties, however, dispute what happened on the way to the bullpen.
Young's Version of Events. Defendants escorted Young to the bullpen with Jenkins walking directly behind Young, holding his handcuffs, and Fox walking behind Young on his left side. (Young Dep. at 83:3-84:1, 101:1-4.) Defendants shoved Young as they walked. (Id. at 84:13-17.) When the trio arrived at the top of the stairs that led down to the bullpen, Fox was on Young's left and “Jenkins had [Young] in the back.” (Id. at 86:3-8.) Young then felt a hand push him in the left side of his back and another hand push him on the back of his head. (Id. at 99:22-100:17, 101:1-15.) Although Young was not facing Defendants when he was pushed, he believes that Fox pushed him from the left side because Fox was on his left side and that Jenkins pushed his head because Jenkins was behind him. (Id. at 100:11-101:15.) Young fell headfirst and somersaulted down the stairs-hitting the rail, the wall, and every stair-until he landed on his back on the floor at the bottom of the stairs. (Id. at 86:9-87:4.) As a result of the fall, Young sustained a “knot” on his head and bruises and cuts on his arms and legs. (Id. at 37:21-38:2, 63:24-64:3.) He also aggravated the arthritis in his neck and spine. (Id. at 37:21-38:2.) After the fall, and without saying a word, Defendants dragged Young by the handcuffs along the floor for five to six feet before placing him in the bullpen. (Id. at 37:9-13, 85:18-24, 87:5-17, 88:1- 3.) While in the bullpen, Young asked unknown staff for medical attention, but he was ignored. (Id. at 88:11-89:3.)
Defendants' Version of Events. Fox denies pushing Young down the stairs, and he further denies that Young ever fell down the stairs to the bullpen. (Fox Dep. at 64:19-65:1, 67:3-6, 77:19-78:1.) Jenkins testified that although he does not recall the day Young's fall allegedly occurred, he never would have pushed Young down the stairs. (Transcript of Stanley Jenkins's Deposition (“Jenkins Dep.”) (Dkt. No. 96-3) at 16:21-17:7, 22:21-23:4.) Defendants also contend that Young never mentioned a fall to a medical provider or sought medical
treatment for a fall. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 34, 36.) In fact, Defendants continue, Young refused treatment on the day of the alleged fall. (Id. ¶ 34.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1048 (7th Cir. 2019). In determining whether to grant summary judgment, “we construe all facts in the light most favorable to the” non-moving party “and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Wehrle v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 719 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). However, the non-moving party must “present specific facts establishing a material issue for trial, and any inferences must rely on more than mere speculation or conjecture.” Giles, 914 F.3d at 1048.
“On summary judgment we do not weigh conflicting evidence, resolve swearing contests, determine credibility, or ponder which party's version of the facts is most likely to be true.” Stewart v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 14 F.4th 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2021). “We have ‘one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.'” Id. (quoting Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003)). Trial is necessary “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986); see also PMT Mach. Sales, Inc. v. Yama Seiki USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 325, 328 (7th Cir. 2019) (“To defeat summary judgment, a party must...
To continue reading
Request your trial