Donald M. Nelson v. S. Padavic, C/O Reid, C/O Dunbar, LT. Dallas, IDOC

Summary

The court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Donald M. Nelson’s § 1983 complaint concerning an alleged September 12, 2024 assault at Menard Correctional Center. Claims for excessive force and failure to protect proceeded against defendants Dunbar and Reid in specified respects, while claims against Padavic, Dallas, and IDOC and the retaliation claim were dismissed without prejudice, except that IDOC was dismissed with prejudice. The court also denied Nelson’s motions to amend without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Nelson stated a colorable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Dunbar because the allegation that Dunbar slammed him down during the attack, accompanied by a retaliatory statement, plausibly suggested force applied maliciously and sadistically and without penological justification.
2. Nelson did not state an excessive-force claim against Reid because the complaint did not allege that Reid personally used force against him.
3. Nelson stated a colorable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect or failure-to-intervene claim against Dunbar and Reid.
4. Nelson failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Dunbar or Reid.
5. Nelson's claims against Padavic were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege her personal participation in the constitutional deprivation.
6. Nelson's claims against Dallas were dismissed without prejudice because supervisory status alone does not establish liability under § 1983.
7. IDOC was dismissed with prejudice because it was not a person subject to suit under § 1983, and the complaint also failed to state a claim against it beyond naming it in the caption.
8. The court would not incorporate unrelated allegations from Nelson's exhibits or motions into the complaint, and denied the motions to amend without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nelson adequately stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Dunbar and Reid.
2. Whether Nelson adequately stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect or failure-to-intervene claim against Dunbar and Reid.
3. Whether Nelson adequately stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Dunbar and Reid.
4. Whether claims against Padavic, Dallas, and IDOC should be dismissed for lack of personal involvement, supervisory liability, or statutory immunity.
5. Whether Nelson's unrelated exhibits and motions to amend could be used to add unrelated claims to the action.

Disposition

other