United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
BARRY W. MATLOCK, Plaintiff,
v.
PORTER, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E.
DEGUILIO JUDGE
Barry
W. Matlock, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended
complaint alleging essentially the same claims as his
original complaint, although he has now named additional
defendants. Matlock alleges that Officer Porter made racially
derogatory comments, he complained about Officer Porter's
behavior, and he was retaliated against for making that
complaint and filing this lawsuit by various other members of
the staff at Westville Correctional Facility. A filing by an
unrepresented party “is to be liberally construed, and
a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the
merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
Matlock
again alleges that, on November 3, 2018, Officer Porter made
racially derogatory comments to him. Under the Eighth
Amendment, prisoners cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
833-34 (1994). “An Eighth Amendment claim based on the
infliction of psychological pain on an inmate requires (1)
objectively, sufficiently serious misconduct, and, (2)
subjectively, an intent to wantonly inflict psychological
pain for no legitimate purpose.” Snow v. List,
No. 11-CV-3411, 2014 WL 1515613 * 1 (C.D. Ill. April 17,
2014)(citing Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939
(7th Cir. 2003)). Standing alone, “[t]he use of
derogatory language, while unprofessional and deplorable,
” is not serious enough to violate the Constitution.
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000).
Matlock has alleged only the use of derogatory language. He
has not detailed any privileges he was denied during this
encounter with Officer Porter. Therefore, while indeed
offensive behavior, he has not described circumstances so
severe as to implicate the Eighth Amendment, and this
allegation does not state a claim.
Matlock
filed complaints about Officer Porter's behavior with
several individuals. After filing those complaints, Mr.
Sonnenberg moved Matlock from his two-man cell to a four-man
cell. Matlock found this distressing because he suffers from
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and this transfer was contrary
to the recommendation of a mental health worker that he not
be placed in a cell with more than one other individual.
Furthermore, Mr. Sonnenberg and Warden Sevier had him removed
from his job with Pen Products. He believes both these
changes were made in retaliation for complaining about
Officer Porter. “To prevail on his First Amendment
retaliation claim, [Matlock] must show that (1) he engaged in
activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a
deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity
in the future; and (3) the First Amendment activity was at
least a motivating factor in the Defendants' decision to
take the retaliatory action.” Gomez v. Randle,
680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Here, while Matlock's allegations are
sparse, he will be permitted to proceed on his retaliation
claims against Mr. Sonnenberg and Warden
Sevier.[1]
Matlock
also alleges that several defendants threatened him because
he complained about Sgt. Porter. His allegations are nearly
identical to those in his earlier complaint. On November 7,
2018, Sgt. Franklin told Matlock that he heard that Matlock
was messing with his friend Officer Porter, that he did not
like for people to mess with his friends, and that
“Westville can be a dangerous place and bad thing[s]
can happen to people like Matlock.” (ECF 23 at 4.) On
November 10, 2018, Sgt. Flakes referenced the complaint
Matlock filed against Porter and indicated that “she
has friends that are Vice Lords and they knew how to deal
with people like Matlock.” (Id.) On November
14, 2018, Sgt. Mottshagen indicated that she heard that
Matlock was causing trouble by filing complaints against
staff, and she indicated that “it would be a shame if
Matlock needed help and Sgt. Mottshagen turned her back and
let harm come to Matlock.” (Id.) On November
17, 2018, Sgt. Yancey reminded Matlock of a brutal attack on
inmates at Indiana State Prison, and he said,
“that's what happens to inmates who mess with his
brothers and sisters in blue.” (Id. at 5.) On
November 26, 2018, Sgt. Collier indicated that she
“would make Matlock pay dearly” if he did not
stop messing with Officer Porter. (Id.) He further
indicated that he has family that are Vice Lords, and
“he could and would put them on Matlock.”
(Id.) On December 6, 2018, Matlock was surrounded by
eight members of the Vice Lords gang and told that he needed
to drop his claims against Officer Porter or he “could
and would be beaten and or stabbed.” (Id.)
Sgt. Collier then told Matlock on December 30, 2018, that he
had not forgotten him. (Id. at 12.) These
allegations state a claim of retaliation against Sgt.
Collier, Sgt. Flakes, Sgt. Yancy, Sgt. Mottshagen, and Sgt.
Franklin. While in his earlier complaint Matlock sought only
injunctive relief, he now seeks both injunctive relief and
monetary damages. Therefore, he will be permitted to proceed
against these defendants in their individual capacity for
monetary damages and in their official capacities for
injunctive relief.
Matlock
has shared information about both Officer Porter's
inappropriate comments and the threats that resulted with
Deputy Warden Gann, Warden Sevier, Deputy Commissioner James
Basinger, Commissioner Robert Carter, Governor Eric Holcomb,
and Complex Director Jessica Rain. None of these individuals
has provided him with any relief. Matlock's allegations
are troubling, as is the failure of prison officials to take
action to protect him, but no physical harm has come to
Matlock as a result of that inaction. Fear of an attack that
does not occur does not state a claim for monetary damages.
See Doe v. Welborn, 110 F.3d 520, 523-24 (7th Cir.
1997)(“An allegation that prison officials exposed a
prisoner to a risk of violence at the hands of other inmates
does not implicate the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and
Unusual Punishments Clause.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). Furthermore, “'no prisoner
is entitled to insist that one employee do another's
job,' and the division of labor is critical to the
efficient functioning of the organization.” Aguilar
v. Gaston-Camara, 861 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir.
2017)(quoting Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594
(7th Cir. 2009). As the Seventh Circuit explained in
Burks:
The division of labor is important not only to bureaucratic
organization but also to efficient performance of tasks;
people who stay within their roles can get more work done,
more effectively, and cannot be hit with damages under
§1983 for not being ombudsmen. [The] view that everyone
who knows about a prisoner's problem must pay damages
implies that [a prisoner] could write letters to the Governor
of Wisconsin and 999 other public officials, demand that
every one of those 1, 000 officials drop everything he or she
is doing in order to investigate a single prisoner's
claims, and then collect damages from all 1, 000 recipients
if the letter-writing campaign does not lead to better
medical care. That can't be right. The Governor, and for
that matter the Superintendent of Prisons and the Warden of
each prison, is entitled to relegate to the prison's
medical staff the provision of good medical care.
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir.
2009). Likewise, Matlock cannot hold everyone that knew he
feared for his safety liable. Matlock will, however, be
permitted to proceed against Warden Sevier in his official
capacity, requiring that Warden Sevier provide Matlock with
adequate protection as required by the
Constitution.[2]
For
these reasons, the court:
(1)
GRANTS Barry Wade Matlock leave to proceed against Mr.
Sonnenberg, Warden Sevier, Sgt. Collier, Sgt. Flakes, Sgt.
Yancy, Sgt. Mottshagen, and Sgt. Franklin in their official
capacity for injunctive relief to cease retaliating against
him for exercising his First Amendment rights;
(2)
GRANTS Barry Wade Matlock leave to proceed against Mr.
Sonnenberg, Warden Sevier, Sgt. Collier, Sgt. Flakes, Sgt.
Yancy, Sgt. Mottshagen, and Sgt. Franklin in their individual
capacity for monetary damages for retaliating against him for
exercising his First Amendment rights;
(3)
GRANTS Barry Wade Matlock leave to proceed against Warden
Sevier in his official capacity for injunctive relief to
provide adequate protection from members of the prison staff
and Vice Lords that have threatened him, as required by the
Eighth Amendment;
(4)
DISMISSES all other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A;
(5)
DISMISSES Sgt. Porter, Mrs. Gann, Governor Eric Holcomb,
Commissioner Robert Carter, Deputy Commissioner James
Basinger, Deputy Warden Kenneth Gann, and Complex ...