Exodus Hebert v. Robert Reid (Lieutenant, Lawrence CC)

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EXODUS HEBERT, # Y44847, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01038-GCS ) ROBERT REID (Lieutenant, ) Lawrence CC), ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Exodus Hebert is an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at the Joliet Treatment Center. He brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights that occurred while he was confined at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). (Doc. 1). He claims Defendant used excessive force against him and seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff’s Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims.1 See 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

1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10), and the limited consent to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between this Court and the IDOC. from an immune defendant must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se Complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez

v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). THE COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges that on December 29, 2023, he witnessed Defendant Reid assaulting another inmate. (Doc. 1, p. 4). When Plaintiff asked Reid to stop, Reid charged at Plaintiff and started to choke him. Plaintiff had trouble breathing and tried to defend himself. Reid then deployed O.C. spray (mace) directly into Plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff

turned around and complied with being handcuffed. As Plaintiff and Reid walked out of Building 7B, Reid slammed Plaintiff’s face hard into a glass door, knocking him unconscious. Plaintiff was taken to the Health Care Unit, where Internal Affairs took photos of his injuries. Plaintiff had a “goose egg shaped” knot and a bleeding inch-and-a-half cut

on his forehead. The injuries were severe and painful. Id. DISCUSSION Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claim in this pro se action: Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Reid for choking Plaintiff, spraying him with O.C. spray, and slamming Plaintiff’s face into a door on December 29, 2023.

The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. 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.2 Count 1

“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). Here, Plaintiff alleges Reid attacked him with no provocation. After Plaintiff was in handcuffs, Reid allegedly slammed his face into the

door with sufficient force to render him unconscious. The Complaint states a viable excessive force claim. Count 1 will proceed against Defendant Reid. DISPOSITION The Complaint states a colorable claim in Count 1 against Reid. The Clerk shall prepare for Robert Reid: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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

2 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that 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.”). Civil Procedure. If 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. Defendant is 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 Administrative Order No. 244 and Local Rule 8.2, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order. 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, even though his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. 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 parties 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 delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b). Finally, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the 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. ° Digitally signed by DATED: November 20,2025, Gilbert C GiterCsison . Date: 2025.11.20 Sison 12:37:18 -06'00 GILBERT C. SISON United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants 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 all the defendants have filed 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 the defendants before filing any motions, to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’ 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 5 of 5