McCurry v. Duncan

MATTEL MCCURRY, No. M- 10261, Plaintiff, v. S. DUNCAN, WARDEN GOINES, C/O CAYE-WOOD,C/O HITCHCOX, C/O RONIN, C/O SAUNDERS,LT. OCHS, LT. WHEELER, SGT. HARPER,SGT. CASBURN, HOUGH, LT. CARRIE,C/O COOPER, COUNSELER KITTIE, andCOUNSELER RAY, Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-296-MJR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

April 12, 2017

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

REAGAN, Chief District Judge:

Plaintiff Mattel McCurry, presently an inmate in Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prior to being incarcerated at Menard, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"). Plaintiff generally alleges that, while incarcerated at Lawrence, Lawrence officials intentionally exposed Plaintiff's underlying criminal convictions,¹placing Plaintiff's life in danger. In connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues numerous Lawrence officials. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order directing officials at Lawrence to place Plaintiff in protective custody and to strictly sanction the officials that violated his constitutional rights.

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

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).

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that Lawrence officials intentionally informed other inmates and prison staff that Plaintiff's underlying convictions involved sexual assault and domestic abuse, knowing that convictions of this nature are "unacceptable" and "despised" by inmates and prison staff. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 12). Plaintiff contends that, as a result, he has been threatened by other inmates and mistreated by prison staff. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-11). Plaintiff further alleges that an "individual defendant" ordered another inmate to physically assault Plaintiff because of his underlying convictions and that this inmate carried out the assault "to the best of his ability." (Doc. 1, p. 4). In addition, Plaintiff contends he has been assaulted by inmates and threatened by Lawrence staff on "numerous occasions." (Doc. 1, p. 7). According to Plaintiff, he has submitted emergency grievances seeking protective custody and/or a transfer out of Lawrence, but his requests have been ignored. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 7).

The allegations described above might be sufficient to state a claim for relief if they were directed at a specific defendant and described the alleged wrongful conduct with more specificity. In the instant case, however, a majority of Plaintiff's claims are not directed at any particular defendant. Instead, Plaintiff brings allegations as to generic individuals or groups of individuals, including "the individual defendant", "the defendants", "officers", "officials", a "c/o" (more than one "c/o" has been named as a Defendant), and a "Sgt." (more than one "Sgt." Has been named as a Defendant). (See e.g. Doc. 1, pp. 3-4, 7, 12). In addition, the Complaint includes very little specificity regarding the alleged threats and assaults. After reviewing the Complaint, the Court notes the following allegations as to specific defendants:

Caye-Wood On February 2, 2016, Caye-Wood began to tell other inmates about Plaintiff's underlying convictions. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Subsequently, other inmates began to threaten Plaintiff and have extorted money out of the Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 12).

Goines

Plaintiff filed numerous emergency grievances with Goines. (Doc. 1, p. 4). The grievances were ignored. (Doc. 1, p. 4).

Discussion

The Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following counts. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.

Count 1- Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants who told Lawrence inmates about Plaintiff's underlying convictions, thus endangering Plaintiff's safety;

Count 2 - Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing to protect Plaintiff from assault by other inmates; and

Count 3- Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants for ignoring or mishandling Plaintiff's grievances.

Count 1

A prison official's harassment of an inmate may become actionable where it involves a "credible threat to kill, or to inflict any other physical injury." Dobbey v. Ill. Dep't of Corr, 574 F.3d 443, 446 (7th Cir. 2009). Allegations that a corrections officer has provoked or persuaded other inmates to cause harm to a plaintiff support an inference that the officer attempted to inflict injury on the plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 449 (8th Cir. 2008) (officer's attempt to have other inmates attack plaintiff may violateEighth Amendment, even where the plaintiff was not actually assaulted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1525 (10th Cir. 1992) (Eighth Amendment claim stated where guard "intended to do harm to [a prisoner] by inciting inmates to beat him[;]" guard told other inmates that plaintiff was a snitch).

Plaintiff generally alleges this type of activity, and further asserts that he has been attacked and threatened as a result of prison officials informing inmates about Plaintiff's underlying convictions. However, a majority of the allegations are not directed at any particular Defendant. The only specific allegation pertains to Caye-Wood. Plaintiff alleges that Caye-Wood relayed this information to other inmates, knowing the information would place Plaintiff in danger, and that, as a result, Plaintiff has been threatened and assaulted by other inmates. The Court finds that Plaintiff's claims as to Caye-Wood are barely sufficient to survive preliminary review. However, as to all other Defendants, Count 2 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the remaining Defendants shall be dismissed without prejudice at this time. Plaintiff may re-plead this claim, naming additional Defendants, in an amended complaint, consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and SDIL-LR 15.1.

Count 2

It has long been established that "prison officials have a duty ... to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal citations omitted); see also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 2006). However, not every harm caused by another inmate translates into constitutional liability for the corrections officers responsible for the prisoner's safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In order for a plaintiff to succeed on a claim for failure to protect, he must show that he is incarcerated under conditionsposing a substantial risk of serious harm, and that the defendants acted with "deliberate indifference" to that danger. Id.; Pinkston, 440 F.3d at 889. A plaintiff also must prove that prison officials were aware of a specific, impending, and substantial threat to his safety. Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92 (7th Cir. 1996).

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that he informed a specific Defendant about a specific, impending, and substantial threat to his safety. He only generally alleges that he filed grievances that were ignored. He does specifically allege that Goines ignored one or more grievances. However, there is absolutely no information regarding the content of this grievance or any specific allegation indicating that Goines "turned a blind eye" to an underlying constitutional violation. In summary, nothing in the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff told Goines or any other specific Defendant (allegations asserted against generic defendants or generic groups of defendants are insufficient) that he was concerned about a specific impending threat.

Accordingly, Count 2 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Count 2 shall thus be dismissed without prejudice at this time. Plaintiff may re-plead this claim in an amended complaint, consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and SDIL-LR 15.1.

Count 3

The fact that Defendants ignored or mishandled Plaintiff's grievances gives rise to no independent claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). It is well-settled that the mishandling of grievances "by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim." Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d...