govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_25-cv-01945-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
WILLIAM BUCK, #R21689, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
 vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-01945-SMY 
 ) 
LT. LIVINGSTON, SGT. NAVARETTE,1 ) 
C/O KIRKWOOD, LT. BURLEY, ) 
SGT. WILSON, SGT. JOHNSON, ) 
C/O BRITTON, C/O MASSEY, ) 
C/O NEWKIRK, GONZALEZ, ) 
CASTELLENOS, C/O WALL, ) 
SGT. BOWKER, LT. KELSEY, ) 
C/O BALLARD, C/O WHITE, ) 
CNA HOOVER, NURSE RUHOLL, ) 
NURSE BROWN, NURSE ELLISON, ) 
JOHN DOES #1-4 (Tact Team Members), ) 
RYAN NOTHNAGLE, ) 
LATOYA HUGHES, and ) 
CARMARILLO, ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
YANDLE, Chief Judge: 
 Plaintiff William Buck , an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) 
currently incarcerated at Joliet Treatment Center, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights during his incarceration at Lawrence 
Correctional Center. He claims he was subjected to excessive force, retaliation, unconstitutional 
conditions, and denied treatment for his serious medical needs (Doc. 1). He seeks monetary 
damages. Id. 
 This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 
 
1 This defendant’s name is misspelled on the docket sheet (See Doc. 1, p. 2). The Clerk will be directed to correct the 
error. Page ID
#<pageID>
2 
 
§ 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious 
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, 
fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be 
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 
The Complaint 
 Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): Plaintiff was housed 
in the health care infirmary at Lawrence starting in July 2024 (Doc. 1, p. 9). 2 Because of his 
medical conditions, Plaintiff is bedridden and requires medical assistance including a Hoyer lift to 
be put in his wheelchair, to be picked up off the floor, to bathe , and to change his diaper . All 
defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs. Plaintiff filed grievances against all named 
defendants complaining of mistreatment and the conditions of his confinement, which prompted 
them to retaliate by attacking him and refusing medical assistance (Doc. 1, p. 10). 
 On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff fell out of bed onto the concrete floor while Defendants 
C/O Britton, Nurses Brown and Ellison, and Hoover (CNA) watched (Doc. 1, p. 11). These 
defendants refused to help him or put him into his wheelchair and refused to change his diaper that 
was full of feces. Instead, they left Plaintiff to lie on the floor in pain in the soiled diaper and 
removed the bedframe from his cell. Plaintiff yelled for help and heard Britton, Brown, Ellison, 
and Hoover say nobody should help him, while they watched him on the video monitor. Dr. 
Weisman arrived and ordered staff to clean Plaintiff, return the bedframe, and lift Plaintiff off the 
floor into his wheelchair (Doc. 1, p. 12). 
 After lunch on September 24, 2024, Plaintiff again ended up on the floor with his diaper 
full of feces and urine. Hoover and Nurse Ruholl refused to help him, and he yelled for assistance 
 
2 Plaintiff was transferred to Joliet Treatment Center in January 2026 (Docs. 13, 14). Page ID
#<pageID>
3 
 
(Doc. 1, p. 12). Tact members C/O Massey and C/O Newkirk, another unknown Tact officer (John 
Doe #1, a white male helping Massey on September 24, 2024), and Lt. Burley told Plaintiff to shut 
up or they would give him something to yell about. Ruholl returned and said Plaintiff would not 
get any help because they knew about his complaints against them and other staff. Plaintiff heard 
Burley, Britton, Ruholl, and Hoover “plotting and conspiring to assault Plaintiff and file false 
paperwork to cover it up” (Doc. 1, p. 12). Soon after, John Doe #1 entered Plaintiff ’s cell and 
pointed a pepper spray can at Plaintiff’s face while another Tact Team officer grabbed his arms 
and handcuffed him in back. The cuffing caused pain in Plaintiff’s elbow and arms (Doc. 1, pp. 
12-13). They rolled Plaintiff face down into the urine on the floor then lifted him by his arms, 
inflicting more pain. His ankles were shackled. Britton stood outside the cell trying to block the 
camera view. Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover were in the cell during these events and instructed the 
others on how to move Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s diaper was removed. Someone spread his buttocks 
and wiped his anal area and scrotum with an object that felt like it contained pepper spray, inflicting 
extreme pain. One of the Tact members slapped Plaintiff’s buttocks and said it would be worse 
next time. 
Plaintiff was sent to an outside hospital for his injuries. Before he left, Plaintiff was 
interviewed by Defendants Gonzalez and Castellenos (Internal Affairs). He told them the incident 
was recorded on camera (Doc. 1, p. 14). The next day, Newkirk and Britton came to Plaintiff’s 
cell and made sexual comments about what they did to Plaintiff , intending to intimidate him. 
Gonzalez and Castellenos returned to Plaintiff’s cell with Massey. Plaintiff told them Massey was 
one of the attackers. Gonzalez and Castellanos replied they knew this. Gonzalez and Castellanos 
put Plaintiff’s fingers in ink, then put his fingerprints on some papers Plaintiff was not allowed to 
read. Later, Massey told Plaintiff those documents would clear him, and threatened Plaintiff (Doc. Page ID
#<pageID>
4 
 
1, p. 14). 
On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff was lying on a mattress on the floor in his cell when 
Burley, Britton, Sgt. Wilson, Hoover, and Ellison entered (Doc. 1, p. 15). Britton handcuffed and 
shackled Plaintiff. Hoover, Ellison, and Wilson walked through urine on the floor, then walked 
onto Plaintiff’s mattress. Wilson placed his foot onto Plaintiff’s genitals with his full weight, 
inflicting severe pain. A doctor ordered Plaintiff sent to an outside hospital. C/O White ( Tact 
Team) accompanied Plaintiff and t hreatened him about filing complaints and grievances on 
Lawrence staff. At the hospital, White threw Plaintiff from the bed to the floor while he was 
handcuffed and shackled. Plaintiff remained on the floor in pain for hours until officers returned 
him to Lawrence. 
On October 15, 2024, Lt. Burley, Sgt. Johnson, and C/O Wall came to Plaintiff’s cell after 
he yelled for help (Doc. 1, p 15). Burley grabbed Plaintiff by the throat and held a can of pepper 
spray in his face while Johnson struck Plaintiff. Plaintiff was in his wheelchair, pushed to the far 
side of the cell out of camera view. They left and Plaintiff yelled for help. From around noon to 
12:30pm, Brown, Hoover, Wall, and John Doe #2, #3, and #4 (Tact Team members described as 
white males working with Nurse Brown on October 15, 2024) twice refused medical treatment and 
left without changing Plaintiff’s diaper. They threatened Plaintiff with more pain if he kept asking 
for help. He was forced to sit in a diaper filled with feces for hours until the second shift (Doc. 1, 
p. 16). 
Similar events occurred during October 2024. Nurses Ruholl and Hoover refused to give 
Plaintiff water or empty his overflowed urinal on October 16, 2024. Ruholl reminded Plaintiff the 
last time he yelled for help he “got something in his ass.” Id. On October 24, 2024, Hoover and 
Burley refused to help Plaintiff into his wheelchair or give him water and left him lying in a feces- Page ID
#<pageID>
5 
 
filled diaper for hours. Hoover again refused to help Plaintiff into his wheelchair on October 25, 
2024. 
Plaintiff was on suicide watch from November 2024 into December 2024. He requested a 
crisis team member around 1:15pm on December 23, 2024 while he was on C -ward (Doc. 1, pp. 
16-17). Sgt. Navarrete told Plaintiff to shut up, kicked his wheelchair, and grabbed his right wrist, 
twisting it backward to apply handcuffs. C/O Kirkwood grabbed Plaintiff’s left wrist and cuffed 
his hands behind his back, knowing this would cause severe pain. Plaintiff started falling off his 
wheelchair. Kirkwood and Navarette held Plaintiff’s cuffed hands in the air, slammed him back 
into the wheelchair and shackled his legs. Carmarillo (BHT) watched the incident without 
intervening. Kirkwood told Plaintiff they would “s how him how they do N***s who complain 
about staff.” Kirkwood and Navarette put another set of shackles on the handcuffs and attached 
them to the bathroom door so Plaintiff was hanging by his arms above his wheelchair in 
excruciating pain. When t hey removed the shackles from the door, they slammed Plaintiff back 
in the wheelchair and pulled the shackles underneath the wheelchair, causing him to yell in pain 
(Doc. 1, p. 18). 
Navarette called Lt. Livingston, Lt. Kelsey, C/O White, and C/O Ballard, who brought a 
“strap” wheelchair. Livingston bent Plaintiff’s left thumb as they slammed him into the strap 
wheelchair and strapped him in. Livingston said they had a “good surprise” for him in 5- house. 
They took him to 5- B #3 where Livingston and the others struck Plaintiff in his groin, stomach, 
back, and head. They slammed him onto the bed, removed his clothes and diaper, and an object 
was put into his anus. Livingston, Kelsey, Ballard, White, and Sgt. Bowker left. Someone threw 
a smock covered with mace onto Plaintiff and threw a second mattress onto the floor. 
On second shift, Plaintiff fell onto the floor and was lying in his own feces. He reported Page ID
#<pageID>
6 
 
the assault to a nurse, who called for help. Castellenos responded and was upset because Plaintiff 
filed another complaint (Doc. 1, p. 19). She interviewed Plaintiff in earshot of other inmates to 
embarrass him. Plaintiff was taken to an outside hospital. 
When he returned to the prison on December 24, 2024, he was placed back in the infirmary, 
where Kirkwood asked him if he was “back for more?” Id. Livingston and Hoover refused to use 
the Hoyer lift to transfer Plaintiff, instead slamming him onto the cell bed, inflicting pain. They 
removed Plaintiff’s clothes while Livingston threatened him with more harm. 
Each of the named defendants knew Plaintiff made many verbal and written complaints, 
grievances, letters, and calls regarding his mistreatment at Lawrence, and retaliated against him 
for doing so (Doc. 1, pp. 20- 21). Plaintiff also raises claims of civil conspiracy, official 
misconduct, and assault and battery (Doc. 1, pp. 21-24). 
 Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designate s the following claims in 
this pro se action: 
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 
claim against Britton, Brown, Ellison, and Hoover for refusing to 
help Plaintiff off the floor or change his diaper on September 11, 
2024. 
 
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Britton, Brown, Ellison, and 
Hoover for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of 
confinement for allowing him to lie on the floor in a diaper full of 
feces on September 11, 2024. 
 
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 
claim against Hoover, Ruholl, Massey, Newkirk, Burley, and John 
Doe #1 for refusing to help Plaintiff up from the floor or change his 
diaper on September 24, 2024. 
 
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Hoover, Ruholl, Massey, 
Newkirk, Burley, and John Doe #1 for subjecting Plaintiff to 
unconstitutional conditions of confinement for allowing him to lie 
on the floor in a feces -filled diaper and rolling him into urine on 
September 24, 2024. Page ID
#<pageID>
7 
 
 
Count 5: Eighth Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference to 
medical needs claims against John Doe #1 for handcuffing Plaintiff 
and painfully lifting him by his arms on September 24, 2024, and 
against Britton, Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover for failing to intervene. 
 
Count 6: Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual 
punishment/excessive force/ sexual assault against John Doe #1, 
Britton, Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover, for wiping Plaintiff’s anal area 
and scrotum with a caustic substance and slapping his buttocks , 
and/or failing to intervene on September 24, 2024. 
 
Count 7: Eighth Amendment excessive force/sexual assault claim against 
Wilson for intentionally stepping on Plaintiff’s genitals on 
September 30, 2024, and against Britton, Hoover, Ellison, and 
Burley for failing to intervene. 
 
Count 8: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against White for 
throwing Plaintiff to the floor in the hospital on September 30, 2024. 
 
Count 9: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Burley and 
Johnson for grabbing Plaintiff by the throat and striking him on 
October 15, 2024 and against Wall for failing to intervene. 
 
Count 10: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 
claim against Burley, Johnson, Brown, Hoover, Wall, and John 
Does #2, #3, and #4 for refusing Plaintiff medical attention for his 
injuries or other needs and refusing to change his diaper on October 
15, 2024. 
 
Count 11: Eighth Amendment claim against Burley, Johnson, Brown, Hoover, 
Wall, and John Does #2, #3, and #4 for subjecting Plaintiff to 
unconstitutional conditions of confinement for allowing him to sit 
for hours in a feces-filled diaper on October 15, 2024. 
 
Count 12: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 
claims against Ruholl and Hoover for denying Plaintiff water and 
allowing his urinal to overflow on October 16, 2024; against Hoover 
and Burley for denying water and refusing to help Plaintiff into his 
wheelchair or change his feces -filled diaper on October 24, 2024; 
and against Hoover for refusing to help Plaintiff to his wheelchair 
on October 25, 2024. 
 
Count 13: Eighth Amendment claim against Ruholl, Hoover, and Burley for 
subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement 
for denials of water, allowing Plaintiff’s urinal to overflow, and Page ID
#<pageID>
8 
 
leaving Plaintiff lying in a feces -filled diaper on the dates listed in 
Count 12 from October 16-25, 2024. 
 
Count 14: Eighth Amendment claims for incidents on December 23, 2024: (A) 
excessive force claim against Navarette and Kirkwood for cuffing, 
shackling, and hanging Plaintiff by his arms and against Carmarillo 
for failure to intervene; (B) excessive force claim against Navarette, 
Kirkwood, and Livingston for bending Plaintiff’s left thumb and 
slamming him into a strap wheelchair and against Kelsey, White, 
and Ballard for failure to intervene; (C) excessive force/sexual 
assault claim against Livingston, Navarette, Kelsey, White, Ballard, 
and Bowker for striking Plaintiff in his groin, stomach, back, and 
head, removing his clothes, and inserting an object into his anus, 
and/or failure to intervene to stop those actions ; and (D) claims 
against Navarette, Kirkwood, Livingston, Kelsey, White, Ballard, 
and Bowker for deliberate indifference to the medical needs 
resulting from these actions. 
 
Count 15: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 
and excessive force claims against Livingston and Hoover for 
refusing to use the Hoyer lift to transfer Plaintiff and slamming him 
onto the bed on December 24, 2024. 
 
Count 16: State law battery claim against John Doe #1, Britton, Burley, Ruholl, 
Hoover, Wilson, White, Johnson, Navarette, Kirkwood, Livingston, 
Kelsey, Ballard, and Bowker for the actions described in Counts 5, 
6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15. 
 
Count 17: First Amendment retaliation claim against all defendants for the 
actions described in Counts 1-16. 
 
Count 18: Claims for conspiracy and official misconduct based on the 
incidents described in Counts 1-17. 
 
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. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is 
plausible on its face.”). Page ID
#<pageID>
9 
 
Preliminary Dismissals 
Defendants Gonzalez and Castellanos will be dismissed from the action without prejudice. 
Plaintiff describes them as Internal Affairs officers who interviewed him on September 24 and 25, 
2024 about the incidents described in Counts 3-6, and prepared documents onto which they placed 
his fingerprints. The mishandling of or failure /refusal to investigate a prisoner’s complaints or 
grievances by a person who did not participate in the underlying conduct does not create liability 
under § 1983. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011); Watson v. Dodd, No. 16-
CV-1217-NJR, 2017 WL 120951, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2017). Further, Plaintiff does not 
describe any adverse consequences that resulted from the documents these individuals prepared. 
Discussion 
Count 1 
 Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel 
and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical 
needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must 
plead facts suggesting (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the 
defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. An objectively serious 
condition includes a condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities or which 
involves chronic and substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters , 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). 
“[D]eliberate indifference may be found where an official knows about unconstitutional conduct 
and facilitates, approves, condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio , 792 F.3d 768, 
781 (7th Cir. 2015). 
 Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference in Count 1 
against Britton, Brown, Ellison, and Hoover for their r efusal to get him off the floor and change Page ID
#<pageID>
10 
 
his soiled diaper on September 11, 2024. 
Count 2 
Prison conditions that deprive inmates of basic human needs – food, medical care, 
sanitation, or physical safety – may violate the Eighth Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 
337, 346- 47 (1981) . To state an Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of 
confinement, a plaintiff must plead facts suggesting he was denied “the minimal civilized measure 
of life’s necessities,” amounting to a serious deprivation of basic human needs that creat ed an 
excessive risk to his health or safety . Farmer v . Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) ; see also 
Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. A prisoner must also sufficiently allege that the prison official acted or 
failed to act despite the official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm from the 
conditions. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. 
Plaintiff describes several instances that defendants refused to change his diaper and 
allowed him to lie or sit in his own feces for extended periods of time. The se allegations are 
sufficient to state claims for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in 
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Count 2 will proceed against Britton, Brown, Ellison, and 
Hoover for leaving Plaintiff on the floor in a feces-filled diaper on September 11, 2024. 
Counts 3 and 4 
 Plaintiff sufficiently alleges Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to his 
medical needs and for unconstitutional conditions of confinement for the events occurring on 
September 24, 2024. He claims Hoover, Ruholl, Massey, Newkirk, Burley, and John Doe #1 
refused to get him up from the floor or change his diaper, leaving him lying in feces and urine, 
then later rolled him face down into urine. Therefore, Counts 3 and 4 will proceed against these 
defendants. Page ID
#<pageID>
11 
 
Count 5 
“Correctional officers violate the Eighth Amendment when they use force not in a good 
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose 
of causing harm.” Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998, 1006 (7th Cir. 2018); see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, 
559 U.S. 34 (2010). Additionally, failure to intervene when another officer abuses a prisoner can 
be the basis for a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment. See Harper v. Albert, 400 
F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005). To state such a claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege a 
defendant (1) knew that a constitutional violation was committed; and (2) had a realistic 
opportunity to prevent it. See Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994). And a guard who 
uses excessive force on a prisoner has “a duty of prompt attention to any medical need to which 
the beating might give rise[.]” Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 917 (7th Cir. 1996). 
Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an excessive force claim and a claim for deliberate indifference 
to medical needs against John Doe #1 for inflicting pain on him with handcuffs and lifting him by 
his arms while cuffed on September 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s allegations also support claims against 
Britton, Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover for failing to intervene in John Doe #1’s use of force. 
Therefore, Count 5 will proceed against John Doe #1, Britton, Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover. 
Count 6 
 The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids 
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity 
of the crime. See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). 
(See authority in Count 2 above). An excessive force claim typically involves “rough or otherwise 
improper handling that causes excessive pain or other harm.” Washington v. Hively, 695 F.3d 641, 
643 (7th Cir. 2012). (See Count 5 above). “An unwanted touching of a person’ s private parts, Page ID
#<pageID>
12 
 
intended to humiliate the victim or gratify the assailant's sexual desires, can [also] violate a 
prisoner’s constitutional rights whether or not the force exerted by the assailant is significant.” Id. 
at 643 (citing Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2009). 
Plaintiff’s allegations state viable claims in Count 6 for cruel and unusual punishment and 
excessive force/sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment against John Doe #1, Britton, 
Burley, Ruholl, and Hoover for wiping a caustic substance Plaintiff’s anal area and private parts 
and slapping his buttocks on September 24, 2024, and/or failing to intervene to stop the 
individual(s) who took those actions. 
Count 7 
 Plaintiff’s allegations support the excessive force/sexual assault claim against Wilson for 
stepping on Plaintiff’s genitals, and against Britton, Hoover, Ellison, and Burley for failing to 
intervene, on September 30, 2024. Therefore, Count 7 will proceed against these defendants. 
Counts 8 and 9 
 Plaintiff’s allegations against White for throwing him to the floor on September 30, 2024 
are sufficient to state an excessive force claim in Count 8. Likewise, P laintiff has sufficiently 
stated an excessive force claim against Burley and Johnson for allegedly grabbing and striking him 
on October 15, 2024, and against Wall for allegedly failing to intervene to stop Burley and 
Johnson. Count 9 will proceed against Burley, Johnson, and Wall. 
Count 10 
 Plaintiff’s allegations support an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to 
serious medical needs against Burley, Johnson, Brown, Hoover, Wall, and John Does #2, #3, and 
#4 for refusing his request for medical attention after the alleged attack by Burley and Johnson 
(see Count 9) and refus ing to change his diaper on October 15, 2024. Therefore, Count 10 will Page ID
#<pageID>
13 
 
proceed against Burley, Johnson, Brown, Hoover, Wall, and John Does #2, #3, and #4. 
Count 11 
 Plaintiff’s allegation that Burley, Johnson, Brown, Hoover, Wall, and John Does #2, #3, 
and #4 allowed him to remain sitting in his feces-filled diaper for hours on October 15, 2024 states 
a colorable claim that they held him under unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation 
of the Eighth Amendment . Therefore, Count 11 will proceed against Burley, Johnson, Brown, 
Hoover, Wall, and John Does #2, #3, and #4. 
Count 12 
 Ruholl and Hoover’s alleged denial of Plaintiff’s requests for water and to empty his 
overflowing urinal on October 16, 2024 states a viable claim for deliberate indifference to serious 
medical needs. The same is true for Plaintiff’s allegations that Hoover and Burley refused to give 
him water, help him into his wheelchair, or change his feces -soiled diaper on October 24, 2024, 
and that Hoover refused to move him to his wheelchair on October 25, 2024. Therefore, Count 12 
will proceed against Ruholl, Hoover, and Burley. 
Count 13 
 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the denial of water on October 16 and October 24, 2024, 
allowing his urinal to overflow on October 16, 2024, and allowing him to remain in a feces-filled 
diaper on October 25, 2024, also support the claim that he was subjected to unconstitutional 
conditions of confinement on those dates. Accordingly, this claim will proceed in Count 13 against 
Ruholl, Hoover, and Burley. 
Count 14 
 Plaintiff’s allegations describing the events of December 23, 2024 state the following 
claims: (A) excessive force claim against Navarette and Kirkwood for cuffing, shackling, and Page ID
#<pageID>
14 
 
hanging Plaintiff by his arms and against Carmarillo for failure to intervene in that alleged 
misconduct; (B) excessive force claim against Navarette, Kirkwood, and Livingston for bending 
Plaintiff’s left thumb and slamming him into a strap wheelchair and against Kelsey, White, and 
Ballard for failure to intervene in that alleged misconduct; (C) excessive force/sexual assault claim 
against Livingston, Navarette, Kelsey, White, Ballard, and Bowker for striking Plaintiff in his 
groin, stomach, back, and head, removing his clothes, and inserting an object into his anus, and/or 
failure to intervene to stop those alleged actions, and (D) claims against Navarette, Kirkwood, 
Livingston, Kelsey, White, Ballard, and Bowker for deliberate indifference claim to the medical 
needs resulting from their alleged acts of excessive force against Plaintiff. 
Accordingly, Count 14 will proceed against Navarette, Kirkwood, Carmarillo, Livingston, 
Kelsey, White, Ballard, and Bowker. 
Count 15 
Plaintiff’s allegations support excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs 
claims arising on December 24, 2024 against Livingston and Hoover for allegedly refusing to use 
the Hoyer lift to transfer Plaintiff and slamming him onto the cell bed. Count 15 will proceed 
against Livingston and Hoover. 
Count 16 
Plaintiff’s state law tort claims for battery are based on the same facts that support the 
excessive force claims in Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14. See Wisconsin v. Ho- Chunk Nation, 512 
F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008) (federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law 
claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact”); see, e.g., Shea v. Winnebago Cty. 
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 746 F. App’x 541, 547- 48 (7th Cir. 2018) (discussing assault and battery under 
Illinois law). Count 16 will therefore proceed against John Doe #1, Britton, Burley, Ruholl, Page ID
#<pageID>
15 
 
Hoover, Wilson, White, Johnson, Navarette, Kirkwood, Livingston, Kelsey, Ballard, and Bowker 
for their alleged actions described in Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15. 
Count 17 
Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances, lawsuits, or 
otherwise complaining about their conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Gomez v. Randle , 680 
F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). “A complaint 
states a claim for retaliation when it sets forth ‘a chronology of events from which retaliation may 
plausibly be inferred.’” Zimmerman v. Tribble , 226 F.3d 568, 573 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation 
omitted). 
Here, Plaintiff claims he lodged complaints and/or grievances against all defendants named 
in the above-referenced counts and his complaints prompted their alleged misconduct and abuse 
directed toward him. As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently ple aded a retaliation claim against 
Livingston, Navarette, Kirkwood, Burley, Wilson, Johnson, Britton, Massey, Newkirk, Wall, 
Bowker, Kelsey, Ballard, White, Hoover, Ruholl, Brown, Ellison, the John Does #1- 4, and 
Carmarillo, which will proceed in Count 17. 
However, Nothnagle (Administrative Review Board) and Hughes (IDOC Director) will be 
dismissed from this claim and from the case because Plaintiff does not include any factual 
allegations indicating these defendants were personally involved in the misconduct alleged in 
Counts 1- 17. Nothnagle and Hughes cannot be held liable under § 1983 absent personal 
responsibility for the alleged constitutional violations. See Taylor v. Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 493 (7th 
Cir. 2021); Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017). 
Count 18 
Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy and official misconduct claims cannot proceed under 42 U.S.C. Page ID
#<pageID>
16 
 
§ 1985(3) or the Illinois statutes he references. The Complaint includes conclusory statements that 
a conspiracy existed to violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and to commit official 
misconduct, but lacks supporting factual allegations. While official misconduct by a public officer 
is a crime in Illinois, a violation of state law does not amount to a federal constitutional claim 
under § 1983. See Archie v. City of Racine , 847 F.2d 1211, 1217 (7th Cir. 1988) (en banc), cert. 
denied, 489 U.S. 1065 ( 1989). Count 18 will therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted. 
Unknown/John/Jane Doe Defendants 
Plaintiff is responsible for securing information aimed at identifying the John Doe Tact 
Team Defendants #1-4, in accordance with the John/Jane Doe Identification O rder that will be 
entered separately. Once the names of the unknown defendants are obtained, Plaintiff must file a 
motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of the generic designations in the case 
caption and throughout the Complaint. The Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center, in his/her 
official capacity only, will be added as a defendant for the purpose of responding to Plaintiff’s 
requests for information regarding the identity of the Unknown Defendants. 
Pending Motion 
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED. There is no constitutional or statutory 
right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). In 
determining whether to recruit counsel, the Court considers whether the pro se party has made 
reasonable efforts to secure counsel on his own and his ability to litigate the case on his own. See 
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). 
Here, Plaintiff has not established any efforts to obtain counsel on his own; he merely notes 
that counsel was recruited for him in previous cases and he is seriously mentally ill. Moreover, at Page ID
#<pageID>
17 
 
this early stage of the litigation, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for assistance of 
counsel, so recruitment of counsel would be premature. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 
845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff ’s need for 
assistance of counsel...cannot be gauged.”). 
Should Plaintiff encounter difficulties in self-representation as this case proceeds, he may 
refile his motion seeking recruitment of counsel. If he renews his request, he should submit at 
least 3 rejection letters from attorneys to show that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel 
on his own. 
Disposition 
 The Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the spelling of Defendant Nacarette’s name to 
“Navarette.” 
The Complaint states colorable claims against Livingston, Navarette, Kirkwood, Burley, 
Wilson, Johnson, Britton, Massey, Newkirk, Wall, Bowker, Kelsey, Ballard, White, Hoover, 
Ruholl, Brown, Ellison, John Does #1- 4, and Carmarillo, in one or more of Counts 1- 17 as set 
forth above. Count 18 and Defendants Gonzalez, Castellenos, Nothnagle, and Hughes are 
DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD the Warden of 
Lawrence Correctional Center, in his or her official capacity, to the docket for purposes of 
identification of the John Doe Defendants. 
 The Clerk shall prepare for Lt. Livingston, Sgt. Navarette, C/O Kirkwood, Lt. Burley, Sgt. 
Wilson, Sgt. Johnson, C/O Britton, C/O Massey, C/O Newkirk, C/O Wall, Sgt. Bowker, Lt. 
Kelsey, C/O Ballard, C/O White, C NA Hoover, Nurse Ruholl, Nurse Brown, Nurse Ellison, 
Carmarillo, and the Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center (official capacity only): (1) Form 5 
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Page ID
#<pageID>
18 
 
Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint , 
and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by 
Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to 
the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps 
to effect formal service on the Defendant, and the Court will require the Defendant to pay the full 
costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
 If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer 
shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the 
Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as 
directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be 
retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk. 
 Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the 
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to Local 
Rule 8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order. The 
Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center need only appear in this matter and need not answer the 
Complaint. 
 Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes 
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the 
costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A). 
 Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of 
Court and the opposing part ies informed of any change in his address; the Court will not 
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 14 days 
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a Page ID
#<pageID>
19 
 
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of 
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 
 Finally, based on the allegations in the Complaint, t he Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 
ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 DATED: June 8, 2026 
 
 
 
______________________ 
 STACI M. YANDLE 
Chief U.S. District Judge 
 
Notice to Plaintiff 
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your lawsuit and serve 
them with a copy of your Complaint . After service has been achieved, Defendant s will enter an 
appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date 
of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days 
or more. When Defendant s have filed their Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order 
containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to 
wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant s before filing any motions, to give the Defendants 
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before Defendant s’ counsel 
has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any 
evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so. Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight