Conwell v. Marvin
3:18-cv-00131
S.D. Ill.May 14, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Luke Conwell, an Illinois state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after an incident on March 20, 2017 in which Officer Marvin allegedly slammed Conwell’s hand in a chuckhole and stabbed it with a chuckhole key while Conwell was requesting toilet paper.
- Officer Hope witnessed the incident, did not intervene, and allegedly refused or delayed medical care for Conwell for three days; Conwell later required antibiotics for an infection.
- Internal affairs officers Pickford and Pearl investigated; Conwell alleges they were biased and attempted to cover up the incident.
- Conwell alleges retaliation: Marvin moved him to a cell without power, caused erroneous charges to his trust account, and had him denied commissary; Dennison and Hillard allegedly failed to process or intentionally delayed/respond to grievances.
- The court conducted a § 1915A preliminary screening and allowed six counts to proceed: Count 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive force/failure to intervene/cover-up), Count 2 (state-law battery), Count 3 (deliberate indifference to medical need), and Counts 4–6 (First Amendment retaliation against Marvin, Dennison, Hillard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Eighth Amendment) against Marvin | Marvin slammed Conwell’s hand in the chuckhole and stabbed it with the key without justification | Any force was minimal or justified by discipline/security needs | Allowed to proceed: facts plausibly show malicious/sadistic use of force rather than a good-faith disciplinary action |
| Failure to intervene / personal involvement (Hope, Pickford, Pearl, Dennison) | Hope witnessed and failed to stop; others covered up or improperly handled grievances | Defendants not personally involved; only Marvin used force | Allowed to proceed: allegations show awareness, condoning, or turning a blind eye and improper grievance responses sufficient for personal involvement |
| State-law battery against Marvin | Marvin’s actions constituted unauthorized touching under Illinois law | State claim duplicative of § 1983 and may not yield additional recovery | Allowed to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction; plaintiff warned of single recovery limit |
| Deliberate indifference to medical need (Hope) | Hope knew of injuries and delayed care for three days, leading to infection requiring antibiotics | Delay or denial was nonculpable, not sufficiently serious | Allowed to proceed: alleged serious medical need and plausible deliberate indifference at pleading stage |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) — Marvin | Filing grievance was protected; subsequent reassignment, trust-account overcharge, and commissary denial were retaliatory | Plaintiff’s allegations speculative as to who caused retaliation and motive | Allowed to proceed: pleadings accepted as true; alleged actions plausibly would deter grievances and may have been motivated by protected activity |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) — Dennison & Hillard | Failure to process/respond to grievances and rejecting grievance relief were retaliatory | Nonresponse/denial were administrative or neutral | Allowed to proceed: failing to respond or rejecting grievances plausibly deters use of grievance process and may be motivated by retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-claim standard for § 1915 screening)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (excessive-force analysis; not every contact actionable)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective knowledge standard for deliberate indifference)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (personal involvement shown by improper grievance response)
- Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (elements of a prison First Amendment retaliation claim)